Jump to content

LE & Civilian Guns Will Be TheSame

Sport Rescue
 Share Followers 0

Recommended Posts

uzitiger

uzitiger 193

Posted
Posted
Ronnie Barrett told the State of Ca. to go to hell and doesn't sell to them AT ALL.

 

I really admire Mark LaRue and Ronnie Barrett for standing up for their customers unllike Kimber's owners who sold .45 pistols to the LAPD special unit which can't be sold to civilians in Los Angeles.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
ChileRelleno

ChileRelleno 7,071

Posted
Posted

I honestly think the whole idea of "states rights" as they apply to individual rights and liberty is outdated and needs to be scrapped. From marriage to drugs to gun rights (and a bunch of other controversial issues) federal laws constitutional rights need to be the standard. But that's another topic...

Since when does the Federal Government give a crap if it's laws are Constitutional?

And if they can't get their law passed, they just create a Federal entity to Regulate it, and then fine and/or imprison you without due process.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
Nev

Nev 2

Posted
Posted

I honestly think the whole idea of "states rights" as they apply to individual rights and liberty is outdated and needs to be scrapped. From marriage to drugs to gun rights (and a bunch of other controversial issues) federal laws constitutional rights need to be the standard. But that's another topic...

Since when does the Federal Government give a crap if it's laws are Constitutional?

And if they can't get their law passed, they just create a Federal entity to Regulate it, and then fine and/or imprison you without due process.

I don't disagree with you. Point was I don't like having different rights state to state, especially when it comes to my 2nd amendment rights. I've been lucky having spent most of my time in AZ and TX. Feel sorry for people in CA and especially those in NY right now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
mancat

mancat 2,368

Posted
Posted (edited)

I honestly think the whole idea of "states rights" as they apply to individual rights and liberty is outdated and needs to be scrapped. From marriage to drugs to gun rights (and a bunch of other controversial issues) federal laws constitutional rights need to be the standard. But that's another topic...

Since when does the Federal Government give a crap if it's laws are Constitutional?

And if they can't get their law passed, they just create a Federal entity to Regulate it, and then fine and/or imprison you without due process.

I don't disagree with you. Point was I don't like having different rights state to state, especially when it comes to my 2nd amendment rights. I've been lucky having spent most of my time in AZ and TX. Feel sorry for people in CA and especially those in NY right now.

 

the 14th amendment already specifies that the bill of rights applies directly to all US states and cannot be violated by state law.

 

states that enact legislation in direct opposition to the wording or intent of the constitution - these laws are invalid.

 

states retain the right to enact their own statutes/code that may even violate federal law, but they cannot contradict the bill of rights of the US constitution.

 

this is why I think it's silly when someone in government claims that their state can enact such restrictions as NY recently did, simply because their state constitution does not contain a clause equivalent to the second amendment, because the 14th amendment ensured that every single one of them does.

Edited by mancat
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
XD45

XD45 7,124

Posted
Posted (edited)
Awesome. Love it.

 

But how big of a nightmare will they have accomodating different "civillian" laws state by state? My guess is serving law enforcement/government agenices unviverally would be easier. I could be wrong.

 

I honestly think the whole idea of "states rights" as they apply to individual rights and liberty is outdated and needs to be scrapped. From marriage to drugs to gun rights (and a bunch of other controversial issues) federal laws constitutional rights need to be the standard. But that's another topic...

I wasn't going to respond to this because I doubt you are who you purport to be. (I could be wrong. Maybe you're just painfully ignorant.)

 

But just so you know that we're not some hayseeds that just fell off the turnip truck, I'd like to quote from our Constitution, specifically the Bill of Rights. I trust you've heard of that. But have you read it? Made any attempt to actually understand it before you so nonchalantly dismiss it as outdated?

 

Amendment 10: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

 

Now in case that's not clear (some people have a problem with the plain english of this document) it means that unless a power is SPECIFICALLY delegated to the federal government, that the federal government has NO RIGHT doing it. All powers other than those few delegated belong to the states and the people of those states.

 

States rights is one of the keystones of our nation. (Or it is supposed to be.) The federal government has no right or authority to control 1/10th of what it controls now.

 

Around here we respect the Constitution. Many of us took an oath to support and defend the Constitution. And we meant it.

Edited by Darth Saigus
  • Like 9
Link to post
Share on other sites
MT Predator

MT Predator 2,294

Posted
Posted

* * This policy does not apply to Military / Federal Agencies * *

 

 

I think the idea is great, but this is where the message falls short. Although as others have mentioned, LaRue may not even have any LE/Mil contracts.

LaRue has several LE/Mil contracts as he makes the most reliable optic mounts in this country and he stands behind his products...period.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
MT Predator

MT Predator 2,294

Posted
Posted
Looks like my next AR will be a LaRue. Maybe we can help him recoup some of his lost LE sales.

At the very least, but an optic mount off of Mark. They are the best IMO and he will replace it if it is defective or you break it. He has replaced "Battle Damaged" mounts in the past, meaning one that has taken a hit from an incoming round. LaRue has been supplying the US Military with mounts for a very long time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
gunman1

gunman1 1,753

Posted
Posted
Awesome. Love it.

 

But how big of a nightmare will they have accomodating different "civillian" laws state by state? My guess is serving law enforcement/government agenices unviverally would be easier. I could be wrong.

 

I honestly think the whole idea of "states rights" as they apply to individual rights and liberty is outdated and needs to be scrapped. From marriage to drugs to gun rights (and a bunch of other controversial issues) federal laws constitutional rights need to be the standard. But that's another topic...

I wasn't going to respond to this because I doubt you are who you purport to be. (I could be wrong. Maybe you're just painfully ignorant.)

 

But just so you know that we're not some hayseeds that just fell off the turnip truck, I'd like to quote from our Constitution, specifically the Bill of Rights. I trust you've heard of that. But have you read it? Made any attempt to actually understand it before you so nonchalantly dismiss it as outdated?

 

Amendment 10: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

 

Now in case that's not clear (some people have a problem with the plain english of this document) it means that unless a power is SPECIFICALLY delegated to the federal government, that the federal government has NO RIGHT doing it. All powers other than those few delegated belong to the states and the people of those states.

 

States rights is one of the keystones of our nation. (Or it is supposed to be.) The federal government has no right or authority to control 1/10th of what it controls now.

 

Around here we respect the Constitution. Many of us took an oath to support and defend the Constitution. And we meant it.

 

I'm just sayn......ohmy.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
Nev

Nev 2

Posted
Posted

I honestly think the whole idea of "states rights" as they apply to individual rights and liberty is outdated and needs to be scrapped. From marriage to drugs to gun rights (and a bunch of other controversial issues) federal laws constitutional rights need to be the standard. But that's another topic...

Since when does the Federal Government give a crap if it's laws are Constitutional?

And if they can't get their law passed, they just create a Federal entity to Regulate it, and then fine and/or imprison you without due process.

I don't disagree with you. Point was I don't like having different rights state to state, especially when it comes to my 2nd amendment rights. I've been lucky having spent most of my time in AZ and TX. Feel sorry for people in CA and especially those in NY right now.

 

the 14th amendment already specifies that the bill of rights applies directly to all US states and cannot be violated by state law.

 

states that enact legislation in direct opposition to the wording or intent of the constitution - these laws are invalid.

 

states retain the right to enact their own statutes/code that may even violate federal law, but they cannot contradict the bill of rights of the US constitution.

 

this is why I think it's silly when someone in government claims that their state can enact such restrictions as NY recently did, simply because their state constitution does not contain a clause equivalent to the second amendment, because the 14th amendment ensured that every single one of them does.

yea this

Link to post
Share on other sites
Nev

Nev 2

Posted
Posted (edited)
Awesome. Love it.

 

But how big of a nightmare will they have accomodating different "civillian" laws state by state? My guess is serving law enforcement/government agenices unviverally would be easier. I could be wrong.

 

I honestly think the whole idea of "states rights" as they apply to individual rights and liberty is outdated and needs to be scrapped. From marriage to drugs to gun rights (and a bunch of other controversial issues) federal laws constitutional rights need to be the standard. But that's another topic...

I wasn't going to respond to this because I doubt you are who you purport to be. (I could be wrong. Maybe you're just painfully ignorant.)

 

But just so you know that we're not some hayseeds that just fell off the turnip truck, I'd like to quote from our Constitution, specifically the Bill of Rights. I trust you've heard of that. But have you read it? Made any attempt to actually understand it before you so nonchalantly dismiss it as outdated?

 

Amendment 10: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

 

Now in case that's not clear (some people have a problem with the plain english of this document) it means that unless a power is SPECIFICALLY delegated to the federal government, that the federal government has NO RIGHT doing it. All powers other than those few delegated belong to the states and the people of those states.

 

States rights is one of the keystones of our nation. (Or it is supposed to be.) The federal government has no right or authority to control 1/10th of what it controls now.

 

Around here we respect the Constitution. Many of us took an oath to support and defend the Constitution. And we meant it.

I suspect we're closer on things than it seems. But I'm just asking how our brothers in CA NY and too many other states feel about our "rights" in AZ TX and other states. I'm simply saying they should be equal across the US, preferably on terms lke AZ TX and even GA which to be honest are the only ones I'm most familiar with having lived in those staes. The constitution was written "In order to form a more perfect union" meaning the government wasn't perfect. It's been changed -- improved -- many time. Simple as a TOPIC in an internet forum, I'm suggesting gun rights should be the same across the US. On terms everyone here is comfy with.

Edited by Nev
Link to post
Share on other sites
gunfun

gunfun 3,931

Posted
Posted

I honestly think the whole idea of "states rights" as they apply to individual rights and liberty is outdated and needs to be scrapped. From marriage to drugs to gun rights (and a bunch of other controversial issues) federal laws constitutional rights need to be the standard. But that's another topic...

Since when does the Federal Government give a crap if it's laws are Constitutional?

And if they can't get their law passed, they just create a Federal entity to Regulate it, and then fine and/or imprison you without due process.

I don't disagree with you. Point was I don't like having different rights state to state, especially when it comes to my 2nd amendment rights. I've been lucky having spent most of my time in AZ and TX. Feel sorry for people in CA and especially those in NY right now.

 

the 14th amendment already specifies that the bill of rights applies directly to all US states and cannot be violated by state law.

 

states that enact legislation in direct opposition to the wording or intent of the constitution - these laws are invalid.

 

states retain the right to enact their own statutes/code that may even violate federal law, but they cannot contradict the bill of rights of the US constitution.

 

this is why I think it's silly when someone in government claims that their state can enact such restrictions as NY recently did, simply because their state constitution does not contain a clause equivalent to the second amendment, because the 14th amendment ensured that every single one of them does.

 

The problem with that is that a while back, the US Supreme court made what it repeatedly admits was a bad call but won't back down. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slaughter-House_Cases

 

Until they do, the 14th amendment is only half enforced. Everyone admits they were wrong, no one is willing to change it since so many newer bad decisions are based on it. They basically have to imply the substance of the 14th in an awkward way through the due process clause of the 5th to give us 14th amendment types of protection. But they pick and choose about when to do so.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Eric Pate

Eric Pate 478

Posted
Posted

The Barrett letter. One of my favs:

 

 

Chief William J. Bratton
Los Angeles Police Department
150 North Los Angeles Street

 

Re: LAPD 82A Rifle, Serial No. 11**

 

Dear Chief Bratton,

 

I, a U.S. citizen, own Barrett Firearms Mfg. Inc., and for 20 years I have built .50 caliber rifles for my fellow citizens, for their Law Enforcement departments and for their nation's armed forces.

 

You may be aware of the latest negative misinformation campaign from a Washington based anti-gun group, the Violence Policy Center. The VPC has, for three or so years, been unsuccessful in Washington, D.C. trying to demonize and ban a new subclass of firearms, the .50 caliber and other "too powerful" rifles. This type of nibbling process has been historically successful in civilian disarmament of other nations governed by totalitarian and other regimes less tolerant of individual rights than the United States .

 

The VPC's most recent efforts directs this misinformation campaign at your state, attempting to get any California body to pass any law against .50 caliber firearms. In March 2002 the VPC caused the California State Assembly, Public Safety Committee to consider and reject the issue by a 5 to 0 with 1 abstaining vote.

 

Regrettably, the same material has been presented to your city council. I personally attended the council meeting in Los Angeles regarding attempts to bar ownership of the .50 caliber rifle in your city. I was allowed to briefly address the council. The tone of the discussion was mostly emotionally based, so the facts that I attempted to provide were ineffective to the extent they were heard at all. The council voted to have the city attorney draft an ordinance to ban the .50, and further, to instruct the city's representatives in Sacramento and in Washington D.C. to push for bans at their respective levels.

At that council meeting, I was very surprised to see an LAPD officer seated front and center with a Barrett 82A1 .50 cal rifle. It was the centerpiece of the discussion. As you know, there have been no crimes committed with these rifles, and most importantly, current California law does not allow the sale of the M82AI in the state because of its detachable magazine and features that make it an "assault weapon." This rifle was being deceptively used by your department. The officer portrayed it as a sample of a currently available .50 cal rifle, available for sale to the civilians of Los Angeles. One councilman even questioned how this rifle was available under current laws, but as I stated, facts were ineffective that day.

 

Your officer, speaking for the LAPD, endorsed the banning of this rifle and its ammunition. Then he used the rifle for photo ops with the Councilmen each of whom, in handling the firearm, may have been committing a felony. I was amazed.

 

Since 1968, with the closing of the U.S. Springfield Amory, all of the small arms produced for the various government agencies are from the private sector. Every handgun, rifle or shotgun that law enforcement needs comes from this firearms industry. Unless the City of Los Angeles has plans of setting up its own firearms manufacturing, it may need to guard the manufacturing sources it has now.

 

When I returned to my office from Los Angeles, I found an example of our need for mutual cooperation. Your department had sent one of your 82A1 rifles in to us for service. All of my knowledge in the use of my rifle in the field of law enforcement had been turned upside down by witnessing how your department used yours. Not to protect and serve, but for deception, photo opportunities, and to further an ill-conceived effort that may result in the use of LA taxpayer monies to wage losing political battles in Washington against civil liberties regarding gun ownership.

 

Please excuse my slow response on the repair service of the rifle. I am battling to what service I am repairing the rifle for. I will not sell, nor service, my rifles to those seeking to infringe upon the Constitution and the crystal clear rights it affords individuals to own firearms.

 

I implore you to investigate the facts of the .50, to consider the liberties of the law-abiding people and our mutual coexistence, and to change your department's position on this issue.

 

Sincerely,
BARRETT FIREARMS MANUFACTURING, INC.

 

Ronnie Barrett
President

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Big John!

Big John! 2,062

Posted
Posted
The Barrett letter. One of my favs:

 

 

Chief William J. Bratton

Los Angeles Police Department

150 North Los Angeles Street

 

Re: LAPD 82A Rifle, Serial No. 11**

 

Dear Chief Bratton,

 

I, a U.S. citizen, own Barrett Firearms Mfg. Inc., and for 20 years I have built .50 caliber rifles for my fellow citizens, for their Law Enforcement departments and for their nation's armed forces.

 

You may be aware of the latest negative misinformation campaign from a Washington based anti-gun group, the Violence Policy Center. The VPC has, for three or so years, been unsuccessful in Washington, D.C. trying to demonize and ban a new subclass of firearms, the .50 caliber and other "too powerful" rifles. This type of nibbling process has been historically successful in civilian disarmament of other nations governed by totalitarian and other regimes less tolerant of individual rights than the United States .

 

The VPC's most recent efforts directs this misinformation campaign at your state, attempting to get any California body to pass any law against .50 caliber firearms. In March 2002 the VPC caused the California State Assembly, Public Safety Committee to consider and reject the issue by a 5 to 0 with 1 abstaining vote.

 

Regrettably, the same material has been presented to your city council. I personally attended the council meeting in Los Angeles regarding attempts to bar ownership of the .50 caliber rifle in your city. I was allowed to briefly address the council. The tone of the discussion was mostly emotionally based, so the facts that I attempted to provide were ineffective to the extent they were heard at all. The council voted to have the city attorney draft an ordinance to ban the .50, and further, to instruct the city's representatives in Sacramento and in Washington D.C. to push for bans at their respective levels.

At that council meeting, I was very surprised to see an LAPD officer seated front and center with a Barrett 82A1 .50 cal rifle. It was the centerpiece of the discussion. As you know, there have been no crimes committed with these rifles, and most importantly, current California law does not allow the sale of the M82AI in the state because of its detachable magazine and features that make it an "assault weapon." This rifle was being deceptively used by your department. The officer portrayed it as a sample of a currently available .50 cal rifle, available for sale to the civilians of Los Angeles. One councilman even questioned how this rifle was available under current laws, but as I stated, facts were ineffective that day.

 

Your officer, speaking for the LAPD, endorsed the banning of this rifle and its ammunition. Then he used the rifle for photo ops with the Councilmen each of whom, in handling the firearm, may have been committing a felony. I was amazed.

 

Since 1968, with the closing of the U.S. Springfield Amory, all of the small arms produced for the various government agencies are from the private sector. Every handgun, rifle or shotgun that law enforcement needs comes from this firearms industry. Unless the City of Los Angeles has plans of setting up its own firearms manufacturing, it may need to guard the manufacturing sources it has now.

 

When I returned to my office from Los Angeles, I found an example of our need for mutual cooperation. Your department had sent one of your 82A1 rifles in to us for service. All of my knowledge in the use of my rifle in the field of law enforcement had been turned upside down by witnessing how your department used yours. Not to protect and serve, but for deception, photo opportunities, and to further an ill-conceived effort that may result in the use of LA taxpayer monies to wage losing political battles in Washington against civil liberties regarding gun ownership.

 

Please excuse my slow response on the repair service of the rifle. I am battling to what service I am repairing the rifle for. I will not sell, nor service, my rifles to those seeking to infringe upon the Constitution and the crystal clear rights it affords individuals to own firearms.

 

I implore you to investigate the facts of the .50, to consider the liberties of the law-abiding people and our mutual coexistence, and to change your department's position on this issue.

 

Sincerely,

BARRETT FIREARMS MANUFACTURING, INC.

 

Ronnie Barrett

President

Would be nice if all firearms manufacturers did this. I realize this is not what he said, but it sounds cool to me anyhow

 

We regret to inform you that due to your intended misuse of our weapons to violate this country's second amendment, we will no longer be able to supply weapons to your agency. Our firearms from this date forward, are for sale to the puplic only.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Nev

Nev 2

Posted
Posted

I honestly think the whole idea of "states rights" as they apply to individual rights and liberty is outdated and needs to be scrapped. From marriage to drugs to gun rights (and a bunch of other controversial issues) federal laws constitutional rights need to be the standard. But that's another topic...

Since when does the Federal Government give a crap if it's laws are Constitutional?

And if they can't get their law passed, they just create a Federal entity to Regulate it, and then fine and/or imprison you without due process.

I don't disagree with you. Point was I don't like having different rights state to state, especially when it comes to my 2nd amendment rights. I've been lucky having spent most of my time in AZ and TX. Feel sorry for people in CA and especially those in NY right now.

 

the 14th amendment already specifies that the bill of rights applies directly to all US states and cannot be violated by state law.

 

states that enact legislation in direct opposition to the wording or intent of the constitution - these laws are invalid.

 

states retain the right to enact their own statutes/code that may even violate federal law, but they cannot contradict the bill of rights of the US constitution.

 

this is why I think it's silly when someone in government claims that their state can enact such restrictions as NY recently did, simply because their state constitution does not contain a clause equivalent to the second amendment, because the 14th amendment ensured that every single one of them does.

 

The problem with that is that a while back, the US Supreme court made what it repeatedly admits was a bad call but won't back down. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slaughter-House_Cases

 

Until they do, the 14th amendment is only half enforced. Everyone admits they were wrong, no one is willing to change it since so many newer bad decisions are based on it. They basically have to imply the substance of the 14th in an awkward way through the due process clause of the 5th to give us 14th amendment types of protection. But they pick and choose about when to do so.

Interesting. Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
MT Predator

MT Predator 2,294

Posted
Posted
Magpul's response to the proposed legislation in Colorado.
In addition to the national battle to protect our firearms rights, many states are currently engaged in their own fights. Here in CO, a state with a strong heritage of firearm and other personal freedoms, we are facing some extreme challenges to firearms rights. We have been engaged in dialogue with legislators here presenting our arguments to stop legislation from even being introduced, but our efforts did not deter those of extreme views.

After the NRAs visit last week, several anti-freedom bills were introduced by CO legislators, and a very aggressive timeline has been set forth in moving these bills forward.

The bills include:
HB 1229, Background checks for Gun Transfers--a measure to prohibit private sales between CO residents, and instead require a full FFL transfer, including a 4473.

HB 1228, Payment for Background Checks for Gun Transfers-- a measure that would require CO residents to pay for the back logged state-run CBI system (currently taking 3 times the federally mandated wait time for checks to occur) instead of using the free federal NICS checks.

And finally, HB 1224, Prohibiting Large Capacity Ammunition Magazines--a measure that bans the possession, sale, or transfer of magazines over 10 round capacity. The measures and stipulations in this bill would deprive CO residents of the value of their private property by prohibiting the sale or transfer of all magazines over 10 rounds. This bill would also prohibit manufacture of magazines greater than 10 rounds for commercial sale out of the state, and place restrictions on the manufacture of military and law enforcement magazines that would cripple production.

We'd like to ask all CO residents to please contact your state legislators and the members of the Judiciary Committee and urge them to kill these measures in committee, and to vote NO if they reach the floor.

We also ask you to show your support for the 2nd Amendment at the Capitol on Tuesday, Feb 12, for the magazine ban committee hearing and Wednesday,
Feb 13, for the hearing on the other measures.

Due to the highly restrictive language in HB 1224, if passed, and we remained here, this measure would require us to cease PMAG production on July 1, 2013.

In short, Magpul would be unable to remain in business as a CO company, and the over 200 jobs for direct employees and nearly 700 jobs at our subcontractors and suppliers would pick up and leave CO. Due to the structure of our operations, this would be entirely possible, hopefully without significant disruption to production.

The legislators drafting these measures do so in spite of the fact that nothing they are proposing will do anything to even marginally improve public safety in CO, and in fact, will leave law-abiding CO residents less able to defend themselves, strip away rights and property from residents who have done nothing wrong, and send nearly 1000 jobs and millions in tax revenue out of the state.

We like CO, we want to continue to operate in CO, but most of all, we want CO to remain FREE.

Please help us in this fight, and let your voices be heard!

We have included the contact information for the House Judiciary committee for your convenience:

House Judiciary Committee
Rep. Daniel Kagan, Chair: 303-866-2921, repkagan@gmail.com
Rep. Pete Lee, Vice Chair: 303-866-2932, pete.lee.house@state.co.us
Rep. John Buckner: 303-866-2944, john.buckner.house@state.co.us
Rep. Lois Court: 303-866-2967, lois.court.house@state.co.us
Rep. Bob Gardner, 303-866-2191, bob.gardner.house@state.co.us
Rep. Polly Lawrence, 303-866-2935, polly.lawrence.house@state.co.us
Rep. Mike McLachlan, 303-866-2914, mike.mclachlan.house@state.co.us
Rep. Rep Carole Murray, 303-866-2948, murrayhouse45@gmail.com
Rep. Brittany Pettersen, 303-866-2939, brittany.pettersen.house@state.co.us
Rep. Joseph Salazar, 303-866-2918, joseph.salazar.house@state.co.us
Rep. Jared Wright, 303-866-2583, jared.wright.house@state.co.us
In addition to the national battle to protect our firearms rights, many states are currently engaged in their own fights. Here in CO, a state with a strong heritage of firearm and other personal freedoms, we are facing some extreme challenges to firearms rights. We have been engaged in dialogue with legislators here presenting our arguments to stop legislation from even being introduced, but our efforts did not deter those of extreme views.

After the NRAs visit last week, several anti-freedom bills were introduced by CO legislators, and a very aggressive timeline has been set forth in moving these bills forward.

The bills include:
HB 1229, Background checks for Gun Transfers--a measure to prohibit private sales between CO residents, and instead require a full FFL transfer, including a 4473.

HB 1228, Payment for Background Checks for Gun Transfers-- a measure that would require CO residents to pay for the back logged state-run CBI system (currently taking 3 times the federally mandated wait time for checks to occur) instead of using the free federal NICS checks.

And finally, HB 1224, Prohibiting Large Capacity Ammunition Magazines--a measure that bans the possession, sale, or transfer of magazines over 10 round capacity. The measures and stipulations in this bill would deprive CO residents of the value of their private property by prohibiting the sale or transfer of all magazines over 10 rounds. This bill would also prohibit manufacture of magazines greater than 10 rounds for commercial sale out of the state, and place restrictions on the manufacture of military and law enforcement magazines that would cripple production.

We'd like to ask all CO residents to please contact your state legislators and the members of the Judiciary Committee and urge them to kill these measures in committee, and to vote NO if they reach the floor.

We also ask you to show your support for the 2nd Amendment at the Capitol on Tuesday, Feb 12, for the magazine ban committee hearing and Wednesday,
Feb 13, for the hearing on the other measures.

Due to the highly restrictive language in HB 1224, if passed, and we remained here, this measure would require us to cease PMAG production on July 1, 2013.

In short, Magpul would be unable to remain in business as a CO company, and the over 200 jobs for direct employees and nearly 700 jobs at our subcontractors and suppliers would pick up and leave CO. Due to the structure of our operations, this would be entirely possible, hopefully without significant disruption to production.

The legislators drafting these measures do so in spite of the fact that nothing they are proposing will do anything to even marginally improve public safety in CO, and in fact, will leave law-abiding CO residents less able to defend themselves, strip away rights and property from residents who have done nothing wrong, and send nearly 1000 jobs and millions in tax revenue out of the state.

We like CO, we want to continue to operate in CO, but most of all, we want CO to remain FREE.

Please help us in this fight, and let your voices be heard!

We have included the contact information for the House Judiciary committee for your convenience:

House Judiciary Committee
Rep. Daniel Kagan, Chair: 303-866-2921, repkagan@gmail.com
Rep. Pete Lee, Vice Chair: 303-866-2932, pete.lee.house@state.co.us
Rep. John Buckner: 303-866-2944, john.buckner.house@state.co.us
Rep. Lois Court: 303-866-2967, lois.court.house@state.co.us
Rep. Bob Gardner, 303-866-2191, bob.gardner.house@state.co.us
Rep. Polly Lawrence, 303-866-2935, polly.lawrence.house@state.co.us
Rep. Mike McLachlan, 303-866-2914, mike.mclachlan.house@state.co.us
Rep. Rep Carole Murray, 303-866-2948, murrayhouse45@gmail.com
Rep. Brittany Pettersen, 303-866-2939, brittany.pettersen.house@state.co.us
Rep. Joseph Salazar, 303-866-2918, joseph.salazar.house@state.co.us
Rep. Jared Wright, 303-866-2583, jared.wright.house@state.co.us
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
 Share
Followers 0
Go to topic listing

  • Chatbox

    Load More
    You don't have permission to chat.
×
×
  • Create New...