Colorado's new gun control laws basically unenforceable

[jamil]

I didn't say that they were violent. Rather than they no longer were people who society could trust. Thus second class citizen status.

How do you not see that this is just a different flaver of collectivist "greater good" speek? So do you have a sliding scale of citizenship class? Does one class of felony make the perpetrator less of a citizen than another, or are all felons lumped into 2nd class?


Armed robbers, gangsters, muderers, yeah it's hard to say let them have guns when they get out. But man, let's at least allow some discretion.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

The cops dare not enforce gun laws. It would result in too many democrats being put into prison.

But anyone who does fill out the form and has lied should be sent to prison. Plus it should be a crime for any felon to even step foot into a gun store.

Talk about an unenforceable law.

 

[jamil]

Talk about an unenforceable law.

We should mostly have laws against actually harming people, not laws that attempt to preempt harm. Those, if they can be enforced at all, generally punish people who, by doing the prohibited action, cause no harm. People who want to obey the law will not buy or sell mags > 15 rounds in Colorado. But then, they are the only ones punished. For the guy breaking the 15 rd limit not one child is any more endangered than before.

 

[Trooper]

If we could just have those who rob or do home invasions target leftwingers, we might have such laws. Think of what would happen in Californian if the Mexican Mafia went after those who live in the Castro St district in SF. Or if those who thought that they were secure because they lived in leftwing communities had gang bangers and such going after them all the time.

Too bad some cop could not give the punks a little guidance....

 

[HeadlessRoland]

We should mostly have laws against actually harming people, not laws that attempt to preempt harm. Those, if they can be enforced at all, generally punish people who, by doing the prohibited action, cause no harm. People who want to obey the law will not buy or sell mags > 15 rounds in Colorado. But then, they are the only ones punished. For the guy breaking the 15 rd limit not one child is any more endangered than before.

All of which reminds me of the Heinlein quote: "I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do."

No law in the history of mankind has ever had any true a priori effect. Not one. Laws against murder do not prevent murder. Laws against have not prevented rape. Laws against theft have not stopped thievery. Defense is the sole means of pre-empting aggression, and those in the halls of power would do away with that right and instead force us to rely on the law, which only comes into effect after the crime forbidden by law. A law against murder does nothing to help the murdered. A law against rape does not nothing to help the raped. A law against thievery does nothing to return the stolen. All remedies-at-law are ex-post-facto and meaningless in the face of one dedicated to act in violation of the law.

There are really only three types of crime: offenses against the person, offenses against property, and offenses against liberty. Every malum-in-se act can be classified as at least one of these three.

But, instead, government will hound to death users of illegal drugs and abuse its vast power to prosecute the malum-prohibitum that so rankles its haunches. Government views a pot smoker to be more of a threat than a murderer, undoubtedly. Only the pot smoker is challenging the authority of government. The murderer is of no consequence to government as his crime does not represent usurpation of government and its ability to be the sole arbiter of morality and behavior. A political dissident is a far greater threat to government than an arsonist. The arsonist can only set fires. The dissident can set fires in the minds of millions to oppose the State. One is clearly more dangerous than the other, if only the situation is put in the proper light.

The disconnect between government and its people can be made no more plain than looking at not just how people view their government, but also in how that government views its people. Most police and officers of the peace and law enforcement in general would, rightfully, consider the murderer to be much worse than the pot smoker, the arsonist much worse than the dissident, the rapist much worse than the litterer. But it is not so to government. So at least there is also a disconnect between government and those who would enforce the law; at least the attitude of government towards its citizens has not settled and seeped into the ranks of those charged with maintaining the peace and enforcing the law. Indeed, the pervading of governmental attitude into law enforcement attitude, that's how the gulags and internment camps came about, and indeed, the only way such things can occur is with the explicit permission of those tasked with law enforcement. And the government does not have that - at least, not yet - and may it never, here. We have instances of unjust or unnecessary force, but those remain the exception to our excellent police forces nationwide, and not the rule. And hopefully it is precisely the enforcers of the law who will prevent disdain by government from translating into abuse of the people.

I think the attitude of the police in Colorado can be summed up, thankfully, with 'non-enforcement' on the magazine law being the order of the day. But the fact that the law even exists demonstrates amply the current attitude of government toward its citizens. In a perpetual battle between tyranny and liberty, I will always bet on liberty prevailing. It is the stronger of the two.

 

[Trooper]

One should remember that Colorado does have a large libertarian voting block.

 

[jamil]

All of which reminds me of the Heinlein quote: "I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do."

No law in the history of mankind has ever had any true a priori effect. Not one. Laws against murder do not prevent murder. Laws against have not prevented rape. Laws against theft have not stopped thievery. Defense is the sole means of pre-empting aggression, and those in the halls of power would do away with that right and instead force us to rely on the law, which only comes into effect after the crime forbidden by law. A law against murder does nothing to help the murdered. A law against rape does not nothing to help the raped. A law against thievery does nothing to return the stolen. All remedies-at-law are ex-post-facto and meaningless in the face of one dedicated to act in violation of the law.

There are really only three types of crime: offenses against the person, offenses against property, and offenses against liberty. Every malum-in-se act can be classified as at least one of these three.

But, instead, government will hound to death users of illegal drugs and abuse its vast power to prosecute the malum-prohibitum that so rankles its haunches. Government views a pot smoker to be more of a threat than a murderer, undoubtedly. Only the pot smoker is challenging the authority of government. The murderer is of no consequence to government as his crime does not represent usurpation of government and its ability to be the sole arbiter of morality and behavior. A political dissident is a far greater threat to government than an arsonist. The arsonist can only set fires. The dissident can set fires in the minds of millions to oppose the State. One is clearly more dangerous than the other, if only the situation is put in the proper light.

The disconnect between government and its people can be made no more plain than looking at not just how people view their government, but also in how that government views its people. Most police and officers of the peace and law enforcement in general would, rightfully, consider the murderer to be much worse than the pot smoker, the arsonist much worse than the dissident, the rapist much worse than the litterer. But it is not so to government. So at least there is also a disconnect between government and those who would enforce the law; at least the attitude of government towards its citizens has not settled and seeped into the ranks of those charged with maintaining the peace and enforcing the law. Indeed, the pervading of governmental attitude into law enforcement attitude, that's how the gulags and internment camps came about, and indeed, the only way such things can occur is with the explicit permission of those tasked with law enforcement. And the government does not have that - at least, not yet - and may it never, here. We have instances of unjust or unnecessary force, but those remain the exception to our excellent police forces nationwide, and not the rule. And hopefully it is precisely the enforcers of the law who will prevent disdain by government from translating into abuse of the people.

I think the attitude of the police in Colorado can be summed up, thankfully, with 'non-enforcement' on the magazine law being the order of the day. But the fact that the law even exists demonstrates amply the current attitude of government toward its citizens. In a perpetual battle between tyranny and liberty, I will always bet on liberty prevailing. It is the stronger of the two.

This is a most excellent post.

However, if I were a betting man, I think I'd bet on tyranny winning the war. Throughout the history of humans, how many person-years have been spent in tyranny vs liberty? Liberty may be the strongest individual force between the two, but the powerful find ways to prevent individuals from unifying that power.

One should remember that Colorado does have a large libertarian voting block.

~26000 out of ~3.5 million registered voters. I think they could stage a coop.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Were there not so many insane ways to get charged with a "felony", this might, possibly, somehow begin to make a little bit of sense. However, a "felony" used to be the term we used to define the absolute worst of crimes: murder, rape, arson, child molesting, but today includes such things as "two DUIs in the space of five years" and "someone who walks out of a store, having eaten a $1 bag of chips while shopping and forgetting to pay at the register". Scutter has referenced law wherein someone who is seen urinating on a wall must register as a "sex offender".

A simple mistake (the chips) is not grounds to forever relegate someone to "second-class citizen". A guy needing to take a leak is not akin to a rapist or cho-mo.

Even if they were, the simple fact is that those people still should be able to exercise the right of self-defense, especially considering who a former felon (who may actually have committed a serious crime) used to associate with and may now need to defend himself from.

For your sake, I hope you are never wrongfully accused of a crime that a stroke of a pen has labeled a "felony". You might find yourself in the same shoes as the guy in NY who campaigned for the so-called "SAFE Act".

Blessings,
Bill

I didn't say that they were violent. Rather than they no longer were people who society could trust. Thus second class citizen status.

 

[Trooper]

How do you not see that this is just a different flaver of collectivist "greater good" speek? So do you have a sliding scale of citizenship class? Does one class of felony make the perpetrator less of a citizen than another, or are all felons lumped into 2nd class?


Armed robbers, gangsters, muderers, yeah it's hard to say let them have guns when they get out. But man, let's at least allow some discretion.

Look, I am just stating what the current situation is. Felons, with no differentiation of crime, are treated as second class citizens with reduced rights.

In my opinion, we need to rethink what is a felony. I believe that a misdemeanor should be able to go five years of supervision (not just jail). And most crimes should not be treated as felonies. In fact it is not the crime but the fact that the individual could not be trusted that should make him/her a felon.

 

[Trooper]

Were there not so many insane ways to get charged with a "felony", this might, possibly, somehow begin to make a little bit of sense. However, a "felony" used to be the term we used to define the absolute worst of crimes: murder, rape, arson, child molesting, but today includes such things as "two DUIs in the space of five years" and "someone who walks out of a store, having eaten a $1 bag of chips while shopping and forgetting to pay at the register". Scutter has referenced law wherein someone who is seen urinating on a wall must register as a "sex offender".

A simple mistake (the chips) is not grounds to forever relegate someone to "second-class citizen". A guy needing to take a leak is not akin to a rapist or cho-mo.

Even if they were, the simple fact is that those people still should be able to exercise the right of self-defense, especially considering who a former felon (who may actually have committed a serious crime) used to associate with and may now need to defend himself from.

For your sake, I hope you are never wrongfully accused of a crime that a stroke of a pen has labeled a "felony". You might find yourself in the same shoes as the guy in NY who campaigned for the so-called "SAFE Act".

Blessings,
Bill

Thus most crimes should be misdemeanors rather than felonies. And Misdemeanors should be up to five years under court supervision. Felonies should such crimes that clearly show that the individuals could not be trusted, that they will harm others.

But then even with all those in prison, we still only have less than 3% of our population in the criminal justice system.

 

[confused89]

Found this over on AR15.com

LIVE NOW: Colorado House committee hears HB14-1151, mag ban repeal. - Page 7 - AR15.COM

This is the live feed for the mag ban repeal.

House State, Veterans, and Military Affairs