Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: Colorado pro-gun firefight, compromise or purity?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,156

    Colorado pro-gun firefight, compromise or purity?

    The issue is whether it’s better to neuter the 2013 law by doubling the legal limit, or hold out for nothing less than a full repeal. At the center of the rift is Dudley Brown, president of the National Association for Gun Rights, whose feuds over ideological purity have put him at odds with large swaths of the state and national movement.

    The fireworks erupted earlier this month when Democratic state Sen. Joe Salazar floated the idea of a 30-round limit. Mr. Salazar’s support is pivotal because he serves as vice chairman of the House’s so-called “kill committee,” where Republican-sponsored gun-rights bills traditionally go to die.
    [ ... ]
    The dispute comes as the latest internecine battle over gun rights involving Mr. Brown. For example, he’s currently attempting to derail the NRA’s National Right to Carry Reciprocity legislation, which would allow those with permits to carry concealed firearms in states that do not prohibit concealed carry.

    Calling the bills a “Trojan horse,” the NAGR says in a March letter that the bills are unnecessary because “the Second Amendment is the only permit law-abiding gun owners should need” and warns that the measures would lead to registration and confiscation.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...-raising-maga/
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  2. #2
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    The issue is whether it’s better to neuter the 2013 law by doubling the legal limit, or hold out for nothing less than a full repeal.

    ...

    The fireworks erupted earlier this month when Democratic state Sen. Joe Salazar floated the idea of a 30-round limit. Mr. Salazar’s support is pivotal because he serves as vice chairman of the House’s so-called “kill committee,” where Republican-sponsored gun-rights bills traditionally go to die.
    I'm a firm believer that incrementalism works. To be clear, this bill doesn't even sound like a "compromise." What does the pro-RKBA side give up in order to get the limit on magazines raised to 30 rounds? Nothing? Then it isn't a compromise, it is just getting less than you want.

    How is getting nothing better?

    If there is a real chance you can get the whole enchilada, go for it.

    If you have to give up something you currently have, or throw someone under the bus, in order to get this, you have a different problem to consider.

    But to get part of what you want, while giving up nothing? Seems like a no-brainer to me.

    I can only think of two possible exceptions:

    1-If you really need some votes on pure bills to distinguish the sheep from the goats and you have the ability to retire the goats next election.

    2-If you are worried that going part way makes it harder to advance to the final goal. For example, off-duty or retired cops get some special privilege. That sub-group no longer has personal reason to work for the rights of the whole group.


    In most cases of reality, neither of these really exist and incrementalism is a very solid path to getting what you want.

    I'd predict that if you can get the 30 round limit this year, you can probably get most LE agencies to go neutral or better on eliminating the ban entirely 3 or 4 years down the road. Are they really going to mess with prosecuting someone with a 100 round drum magazine for his 10-22 at that point?

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    El Paso County, Colorado
    Posts
    309
    Quote Originally Posted by utbagpiper View Post

    I'd predict that if you can get the 30 round limit this year, you can probably get most LE agencies to go neutral or better on eliminating the ban entirely 3 or 4 years down the road. Are they really going to mess with prosecuting someone with a 100 round drum magazine for his 10-22 at that point?

    Charles
    Already "most LE agencies" here are on record as saying the existing ban is a crock.

    Its most pernicious effect hasn't been the fear of prosecution felt by Joe Gunowner, because almost no cop wants to do it, but rather the fact that gun shops and manufacturers worry about being busted, and oftentimes won't even sell or even distribute magless guns where the mag is of too high a capacity. There are online dealers who won't sell to anyone in Colorado any more (going through the FFL goatrope, I must make sure I am clear on, lest some grabber idiot think I'm affirming their hysteria about buying guns on the internet), regardless of the model of gun. Furthermore, though it's a 15 round limit, many mag and gun manufacturers of >15 round magazines don't even offer a 15 round option, so you're stuck with ten anyway.
    Last edited by SteveInCO; 04-21-2015 at 10:08 AM.

  4. #4
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveInCO View Post
    Already "most LE agencies" here are on record as saying the existing ban is a crock.
    Good to hear.

    Quote Originally Posted by SteveInCO View Post
    Its most pernicious effect .... , though it's a 15 round limit, many mag and gun manufacturers of >15 round magazines don't even offer a 15 round option, so you're stuck with ten anyway.
    Sounds like a 30 round limit effectively solves the practical problem then. Not many handguns take a >30 round magazine.

    I guess the question is can you get a complete repeal or do you have a couple of legislators acting as gatekeepers to protect the current law?

    If the former, go for it.

    If the latter, can you realistically expect to defeat the gatekeepers in 2016 and get a complete repeal in 2017? Any chance of drumming up enough energy to recall the remaining bad legislators including the head of the committee offering up the 30 round limit and the leadership who sends him the good gun bills to kill?

    My guess is that if you can get the 30 round increase this year without much of a fight, you can come back by 2017 or 2018 and repeal it entirely.

    I am very grateful to Colorado gun owners who succeeded in a couple of recalls. You folks are living with some real pain from the bad law enacted. But your willingness to recall some of those responsible sent a powerful message nationwide that gun control was a very dangerous issue for politicians' careers at the State level as well as at the federal level. Not having to defend against bad bills is a huge step in the right direction and Colorado gun owners rendered a huge service to RKBA nationwide. Thank you!!

    Best of luck getting some good laws passed to correct past wrongs, both recent and more long-standing.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Northwest Kent County, Michigan
    Posts
    757
    Being an absolutist when it comes to our inalienable rights, I know how hard it is to take a little bit of your freedom back at a time. Nevertheless, I am also a pragmatist. Get 30 rounds now, replace the defective politicians during the next election cycle and then repeal the rest later. Good luck Colorado!
    Last edited by OC4me; 04-23-2015 at 09:30 AM.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    El Paso County, Colorado
    Posts
    309
    One of the defective politicians is the governor, Hickenlooper, who will be in until early 2019 since he managed to get reelected last November by a three percent margin.

    People are already prognisticating that the Democrats will retake the senate in the 2016. So it will be very tough to ever get rid of this f***ing ban.

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974
    Incrementalism is sometimes quite effective. However, sometimes, it gives the wheel just enough grease that it is no longer squeaky enough to attain any more increments.

    Certainly increasing mag limit to 30 rds is going to take care of all but a small segment of the market. However, it also reopens the overall market. If Bob the hunter doesn't think you need 30 rds of death throwing "high powered" 5.56 rounds for your scary assault rifle when he only needs 5 rds in his not high powered just regular ol' .30-06 hunting rifle and only 5 in his also not at all high powered .500 back up hunting revolver so he votes against you, you aren't going to get any support if you just bump that limit to 30 rds and all else goes back to normal.

    BUT if Bob the hunter can't buy a new .22-250 or .300 or .454 Casual because dealers don't want to sell in your state and so the few who do are scalping their patrons, he may rethink the consequences of calling you an assault wielding child murderer and may figure that freedom is better than no freedom so he can get that new gun.

    I don't know enough about what's on the ground in CO to have an opinion which way. However, I think the consequences of how many squeaky wheels will suddenly just be occasionally whiny if the so-called compromise is followed, needs to be considered.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    El Paso County, Colorado
    Posts
    309
    Quote Originally Posted by deepdiver View Post
    Incrementalism is sometimes quite effective. However, sometimes, it gives the wheel just enough grease that it is no longer squeaky enough to attain any more increments.

    Certainly increasing mag limit to 30 rds is going to take care of all but a small segment of the market. However, it also reopens the overall market. If Bob the hunter doesn't think you need 30 rds of death throwing "high powered" 5.56 rounds for your scary assault rifle when he only needs 5 rds in his not high powered just regular ol' .30-06 hunting rifle and only 5 in his also not at all high powered .500 back up hunting revolver so he votes against you, you aren't going to get any support if you just bump that limit to 30 rds and all else goes back to normal.

    BUT if Bob the hunter can't buy a new .22-250 or .300 or .454 Casual because dealers don't want to sell in your state and so the few who do are scalping their patrons, he may rethink the consequences of calling you an assault wielding child murderer and may figure that freedom is better than no freedom so he can get that new gun.

    I don't know enough about what's on the ground in CO to have an opinion which way. However, I think the consequences of how many squeaky wheels will suddenly just be occasionally whiny if the so-called compromise is followed, needs to be considered.
    I have considered this argument/ Of the arguments I've seen against going along with an offered "bump" to 30, this is the only smart one. Most of the anti-30s (*cough*RMGO*cough*) are engaged in a "no compromises" temper tantrum, displaying anger that would be appropriate if the incrementalism were proceeding in the wrong direction is instead simply being misplaced by these people out of sheer habit, I think. In their defense, they're used to genuinely bad bills where no bill at all would be the vastly better alternative, and to them incrementalism is a dirty word whether or not it's preceded by "gun control," maybe because they've been conditioned by the fact that it usually is preceded by that. They don't stop to look at the direction the arrow is pointing because it almost always points the wrong way. That leaves them looking like jackasses when the arrow happens to be pointing the right way.

    That aside, and (finally) countering what you said, I think that if the limit were 30 at some point in the future, it'd be relatively painless to slip in a rider some day to repeal it, because it wouldn't make all that much difference and even most of the antis would know it. But that assumes that a non-anti-gun party ever has control of house, senate and governor's mansion, and even back in the days Colorado was solidly red (at at least one time in the 1980s, we nearly had veto proof R- majorities in the legislature) we had a predilection for governors whose last initial was D.

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    The issue is whether it’s better to neuter the 2013 law by doubling the legal limit, or hold out for nothing less than a full repeal
    Hail Mary plays rarely turn out well. Nothing wrong with aiming high, but neither football nor politics are ever won by shooting for the Moon and refusing to accept anything less. That's a perfect recipe for LOSING.

    At the center of the rift is Dudley Brown, president of the National Association for Gun Rights, whose feuds over ideological purity have put him at odds with large swaths of the state and national movement.
    Yep. That's his modus operandi, all right. It's also why I'm a huge NON-fan of NAGR. Instead, I support GOA and the grass roots effects of people like those on this forum.

    The fireworks erupted earlier this month when Democratic state Sen. Joe Salazar floated the idea of a 30-round limit. Mr. Salazar’s support is pivotal because he serves as vice chairman of the House’s so-called “kill committee,” where Republican-sponsored gun-rights bills traditionally go to die.
    I'm not a fan of Salazar, but I do think he was trying to acknowledge the bill was gross without actually lifting the ban entirely. He more than cleared the way for 99.99% of us while still being able assuade those who insisted some sort of "restriction" remain in place.

    The dispute comes as the latest internecine battle over gun rights involving Mr. Brown. For example, he’s currently attempting to derail the NRA’s National Right to Carry Reciprocity legislation, which would allow those with permits to carry concealed firearms in states that do not prohibit concealed carry.
    In politics, winning isn't won by totally blowing the opposition out of the water, except in exceedingly rare circumstances. If an issue is contentious, it's because roughly equal forces exist on both sides of the issue. You don't have to take "baby steps," particularly if the tide is turning against the antis like it is all over America. You cannot, however, walk into the room like an egotistic elephant dictating the way everything "should" be to the opposition. That just causes them to dig in their heels and refuse to budge. Dudley's actions are actually worsening our position, and gravely so.

    Calling the bills a “Trojan horse,” the NAGR says in a March letter that the bills are unnecessary because “the Second Amendment is the only permit law-abiding gun owners should need” and warns that the measures would lead to registration and confiscation.
    If Salazar is increasing the mag limit to 30 just so he can slide in a registration clause, I agree that such activity is absolutely not acceptable. On the other hand, if there are no strings attached, take the deal.

    Movements are afoot to restore the Second Amendment to it's founder's original intent, explained very well in the 1982 Congressional Report on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Dudley's extreme positions threaten these with no real hope of any gain due to his extremism.

    He thinks he's championing the cause, but he's actually hurting it.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,156
    It was through Dudley Brown, RMGO, NAGR, NRAWOL and WGO that I learned of Michael I. Rothfeld of SABER Communications and his The Real Nature of Politics and Politicians. Its lessons were central to South Carolina's successful liberalization of gun rights that resulted in the 1996 Law Abiding Citizens Self-Defense Act first legalizing any regular gun carry.

    http://wyominggunowners.org/about/real-nature/

    About incrementalism, we often argued to eat the elephant whole or a bite at a time. The Act was incremental and a compromise, and now there is no movement to Constitutional Carry or open carry in South Carolina. It is rice-bowl politics as usual. Dudley Brown represents true Grassroots Gun Rights. SCFirearms.org is still stifled by legal action by the state affiliate. Follow the money to P4P!
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    Dudley Brown represents true Grassroots Gun Rights.
    What he represents isn't the issue.

    The issue is his "all or nothing" approach that NEVER WORKS IN POLITICS.

    Dudley's a drag racer in a Monte Carlo world. Two completely different mindsets and skills.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,156
    Incrementalism and compromise has not served South Carolina well, but only sustained the P4P business model.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    Incrementalism and compromise has not served South Carolina well, but only sustained the P4P business model.
    I & C may not have served SC well, but going for broke with a 100% chance of getting completely shut down has never helped it at all.

    Politics isn't a hurrying man's game. It takes time.

    On the other hand, you may come across an opportunity that will allow you to take more than an incremental advance.
    Last edited by since9; 05-07-2015 at 11:09 PM.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,156
    The Law Abiding Citizens Self-Defense Act of 1996 is approaching its twentieth anniversary, a product of I&C. Follow the money to P4P.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  15. #15
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    Incrementalism and compromise has not served South Carolina well, but only sustained the P4P business model.
    I'm reminded of the sage insight of the late Speaker Tip O'Neill that, "All politics is local."

    I wouldn't presume to know what the specific dynamics are in South Carolina or even Colorado for that matter. I'm also not much of a fan of "compromise" as that word was mis-used for many years wherein gun owners gave up less than we were asked for and got little or nothing in return. That was successful incrementalism for the other side under the false guise of "compromise." And I won't throw any group under the bus to gain some benefit for others.

    But in States across the nation, incrementalism has a solid track record not just in improving RKBA (and our practical ability to carry guns for self defense even when the right to do so has not yet been properly recognized as a right), but prior to that, a solid track record in advancing the agenda of the anti-gun crowd, more recently of advancing the pro-homosexual agenda, and so on.

    Over the last nearly 30 years since Florida adopted shall-issue in 1987, we've seen tremendous progress across the nation to the point that half-a-dozen States are now constitutional carry. It isn't a stretch to suggest that the widespread availability of shall-issue and the public possession of arms enabled by such permits played a subtle, but important role in the SCOTUS ruling in favor of an individual right in Heller and McDonald.

    "What if" games are interesting, but futile. It is possible that South Carolinians are happy with current law and so won't push for anything more. Maybe in the absence of shall issue they would demand constitutional carry. Or, maybe in the absence of shall issue there would not be enough culture of guns for self-defense to demand anything. Again, I don't presume to know the culture of South Carolina well enough to venture an informed guess.

    But we should remember, in the wake of Vietnam "gun culture" in this nation was declining. High schools and colleges shuttered their shooting ranges and stopped offering gun safety or marksmanship classes. Hunting was on the decline. During the mid 80s the gun grabbers managed to outlaw the sale of new full autos into the non-government market. And in '94 the hoplophobes struck their high point in banning the sale of lots of new guns based on cosmetic features and magazines over 10 rounds.

    Incrementalism got us an entire industry devoted to the non-government carry of firearms for self-defense, including lots of options for women (who had never been much into hunting). The grass roots is no longer dominated by hunters, but is now the realm of those interested mostly in self-defense. The entire term of the debate has shifted to one much closer to the original intent of the 2nd amendment.

    I do not intend to bash any gun group. But I will briefly offer my perspective on the NAGR.

    My problem with the NAGR is not that they disagree with me on the value of incrementalism. I can accept honest difference of opinion.

    My problem with that group (and those 2 or 3 folks in Utah affiliated with it) is that they are either grossly incompetent or deliberately deceitful when it comes to reading legislation and reporting on what statutory effect that legislation will have. They just flat get things wrong more often than not.

    When it comes to whether a particular piece of legislation is "good" or "bad" we are talking about opinions and beliefs and even how that bill affects someone's grand strategy. Plenty of room for debate. But when we are talking about the statutory effect of a bill--what conduct it either criminalizes, decriminalizes, taxes, etc--there is far less room for opinion. Here in Utah, the NAGR and their local folks consistently get the statutory analysis of bills grossly wrong.

    It also doesn't help that they are beyond abrasive and immature in their language and conduct toward legislators. They took H.L. Richardson's good tactics and warped them into an excuse to engage in slander, libel, and just childish insults and tantrums. "Confrontational politics" was never meant to mean acting like the south end of a north bound mule.

    Anyone who complains about "P4P" might consider on the fund raising efforts of the NAGR. They claim 3 million members (with annual dues at $65, or lifetime at $1000), while also soliciting donations. Yet they claim only a single "victory" on their "about" page, the Bonidy et al. V. United States Postal Service case which is only binding in Colorado. An annual budget of some $200 million for a single group is no small potatoes. For example, in Utah we issued slightly fewer than 30,000 new permits to residents last year. If you figure $100 per permit (high side for in-State permit training), that is less than $3 million spread over dozens of local instructors. We do not require any training to renew a permit. The State is as close to break even as we can make it for permit fees. The vast majority of our local pro-RKBA activists/lobbyists work for free. The total revenue stream into the Utah "P4P" crowd pales in comparison to what NAGR is taking in.

    Just some food for thought for those who want to "follow the money".

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  16. #16
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Reading the article linked to in the op I did not read where there was actually a bill or amendment submitted this session. Seems to be more of a media outlet highlighting the differences in the various gun organizations.

    When a bill or amendment is filed let us know.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  17. #17
    Newbie
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    5
    "Incrementalism" seems to work just fine with taking away our rights and it probably would have worked to restore them. Politicians don't live forever. "Kill committee" or not. I would have loved to at least have standard capacity mags back on local store shelves...

    Going for all or nothing seems like an impatient and inefficient tactic. We are preserving these rights so much for ourselves as we are for our children and their children. To forsake the long term is self-defeating IMO.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    El Paso County, Colorado
    Posts
    309
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Reading the article linked to in the op I did not read where there was actually a bill or amendment submitted this session. Seems to be more of a media outlet highlighting the differences in the various gun organizations.

    When a bill or amendment is filed let us know.
    You're right, there wasn't. A couple of Dems floated a trial balloon, and it sank.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •