search
top

The Magazine Battle in Colorado

Most everyone is aware of the effort by Senate Republicans in Colorado to repeal Colorado’s post-Sandy Hook gun control laws. That effort runs into issues in the Democratically controlled house, and then finally with Governor Hickenlooper. So you’d think of the Democrats conceded that maybe they went too far, and they’d be willing to consider a bill that would ease the magazine ban to 30 rounds, you’d jump at that right?

Not Dudley Brown. See more at the Denver Post:

“It is unforgivable that it is RMGO and not Michael Bloomberg keeping me from buying a 30-round magazine,” Caldara said Friday. “Just as every gun owner needs to know who was behind the terrible gun laws in 2013 — Bloomberg and Gov. John Hickenlooper — every gun owner needs to know that Rocky Mountain Gun Owners is stopping a huge step toward fixing it.”

Dudley is holding out for full repeal, suggesting the Dems need to repeal the law or “face the election consequences in 2016.”

First, I’d never be that confident that the 2016 elections are going to go our way. If the GOP fails to take back the Colorado House, you’re probably stuck with the 15 round limit, unless the courts come through, which I also would not count on. If Colorado stays in Democratic hands through the 2020 census, there’s a very good chance there is no saving the state at all, and it’ll continue to get worse.

On the other hand, 30 rounds is on the table now, which would mean the vast majority of magazines people tend to own in Colorado would be legal. It would render the magazine law essentially meaningless, which would mean getting the other half of the pie later would be an easier sell. If the GOP does prevail in 2016, well, then you’re one step closer to full repeal already. I just don’t see any downside to taking the House Dems up on their offer.

The Denver Magazine asks “Has Dudley Brown Finally Gone Too Far?” Also see this video with Dave Kopel:

Last Wednesday, Brown tried an unheard of maneuver that caught everyone off guard, and was eventually ruled out of order, and ultimately defeated, with five Republicans joining the Democrats. It should be noted that even on a straight party line vote, this would have been defeated. Brown is now threatening the five Republicans who voted against the motion in primaries. Those Republicans are:

  • NRA A Rated and Endorsed Rep. J. Paul Brown
  • NRA A Rated and Endorsed Rep. Timothy Dore
  • NRA A Rated and Endorsed Rep. Bob Rankin
  • NRA B+ Rated Yeulin Willett
  • Rep. Jon Keyser (never returned the NRA questionnaire

OK, I’d give Dudley challenging Keyser, and maybe Willett depending on whether or not that district can support a better candidate, or whether replacing him with a stronger gun rights candidate would throw the race to an anti-gun Democrat. I don’t know the district. But the first three are solid people on the issue, who perhaps voted against the maneuver because once you unleash a weapon like that, you invite your opposition to use it on you. There is a reason deliberative bodies have procedures.

We all want the magazine ban completely gone. But we can get 95% of the way there now, or hold off and rely on vague hopes that things will go as well or better for the GOP as they did in 2014. I’m for taking what we can get now. This no compromise stuff just doesn’t work in the real world. If Dudley were really the powerhouse he claims to be, and if he were truly a strategic genius, Colorado would never be in this mess in the first place.

53 Responses to “The Magazine Battle in Colorado”

  1. The_Jack says:

    There’s also a difference between the comprimise of “I have to give up X to get Y” versus the comprimise of “I only get half of X”.

    And in this case half is being generous. As pointed out raising the ban to 30 rounds makes an already untenable law into a joke.

    Or is the argument that a full repeal of a 15 round ban in a few years will be easier than repealing a 30 round ban?

  2. John says:

    I really dislike Dudley Brown. But I have mixed feelings regarding this dubious no compromise vs compromise scenario. First, according to Colorado2A, this whole controversy is based on an off-hand comment that an anti-gun rep would consider easing the limit. Why are gun owners allowing themselves to be tied into knots over what one anti might be willing to do?

    I get working toward repeal a piece at a time, but I also understand concerns that easing the limit reduces pressure for repeal. People ought to be able to have different views of this without getting all antsy about it.

    • Sebastian says:

      Pressure for repeal will drop over time even if it stays at 15 rounds. I think it the Dems didn’t lose the Colorado House in 2014, the GOP regaining it in 2016, when Dem turnout will be higher, seems unlikely. Maybe the GOP would have a shot at recapturing the majority in 2018, but that’s a long ways off, and there’s a lot of uncertainty between now and then.

      Now, maybe if you ran the right kind of Republican, some of those seats could be won back in 2016. But Dudley is going to insist on strong social conservatives in a state with a big libertarian streak, and probably would not back a more electable, socially liberal Republican who just happened to be strong on the Second Amendment.

      The offhand comment was what was said publicly. There’s going to be a lot more going behind the scenes, and for this many people to get this pissed off, I’d wager that this was more than one lawmaker’s offhand comment.

  3. FiftycalTX says:

    Dudley Brown is only out for himself. The asshole is trying to drum up gun owners to only accept the “pure” solution. Same thing what’s his name at GOA tried to do to Texas 20 years ago. He demanded that Texas ONLY accept “constitutional carry”. Well, we’ve had concealed carry for 20 years and now have 850,000 with concealed handgun licenses. GOA would rather have had Texans disarmed all that time so they could keep sucking MONEY out of their followers. And we may get open carry with a CHL if the 2 houses will quit squabbling over who did what to whom with what. Oh, and some zealots only want the “pure” “constitutional carry”.

  4. HappyWarrior6 says:

    A mag ban is so entirely unacceptable that it needs to go. And why 30? I have AK mags (old ones) that hold 40 without going to a drum. Arbitrary. Just like the law.

    And John is right – the fewer people that are pushing for an outright repeal, the more people think that it’s fixed. We can do better. “Better” is no less than restoring what Colorado had BEFORE Bloomberg money bought the politicians who worked against their rights.

    Brown is right here.

    • Sebastian says:

      The reason people want to take the offer is because it’s currently impossible to repeal the ban with the current makeup of the Colorado House. That makeup, post the 2014 elections, is not likely to change in 2016, when Dem turnout will be higher. Maybe there are seats that could be captured by a good Republican candidate who’s maybe a little softer on social issues, but strong on the Second Amendment, but Dudley will try to axe any candidate that isn’t a die-hard social conservative.

    • mike says:

      Brown is not right here. The other side doesn’t say “We want the full repeal of the 2nd Amendment NOW, or nothing!” No, they’re happy to chip away at it over generations. It would be wonderful for us if they chose that tactic, just like it would be wonderful for them if we chose that tactic. Yet, fools like Brown are happy to let them lock in their gains instead of clawing a few back right away. This is a long game, and if you expect to win overnight, expect to lose.

    • SPQR says:

      There is no realistic chance of full repeal. Even the compromise of 30 rounds isn’t likely. Brown is playing to his fire eating base, not reality.

  5. Stephen says:

    AS a Coloradan I’ve got mixed feelings on this. With the existing Democrat gerrymandering it’s doubtful we’ll take back the house in 2016 — every member of the house was up for election last time, a big Republican “wave” election, and we didn’t get it then; while dems did get the stoner vote in last time (with legalization of recreational pot) and that won’t be as prevalent in 2016, I still think the house is doubtful. and governorship isn’t up until 2018. Our electorate has been heavily Kalifornicated and the Dems have done too well with the Hispanic vote.

    From a personal POV a 30 round limit would pretty much make me happy. But Dudley’s argument is once we get to a 30 round limit, however ridiculous that is, there won’t be enough energy to fight further to get it completely removed. A lot of politics comes down to how many people’s oxen’s are getting gored, and a change to 30 would fix the problem to the extent that many of us wouldn’t be incensed enough to stay involved.

    But I still think we should have taken the deal. Because as you said it’s a big improvement, and bottom line is I don’t think we’ll do any better anytime soon. Dudley is worried that we’ll be stuck with a 30 round limit forever, but I’m worried we’ll be stuck with a 15 round limit forever. Sometimes a compromise is the only sane course of action, even if you keep fighting afterward.

    Our opponents know this. They fight for every crappy little law/limitation they can, knowing that it’s a slippery slope and that momentum is what wins battles. Some on our side don’t get that, and think it’s an all-or-nothing battle.

  6. rd says:

    I do not like the 30 round limit. However if you have faith in your side’s electoral chances, then half a loaf is better than no loaf. And you can come back for the other half later. When the 30 round limit is being debated, see who will say that only X number is OK?

    How did the five states get to constitutional carry? Most did it incrementally. And every state had people claiming blood in the streets, Dodge City, road rage massacres, and shootouts over parking spaces!!! Permitted Carry passed. None of that happened, and soon constitutional carry seemed to be reasonable too. They reclaimed their civil rights over time, just like our forefathers lost many of our gun rights over time.

    Take what you can now! (And try to vote out the antis that oppose you.) Come back for the rest again and again. It is not easy, it is damned hard work, but it will work.

    • Matthew Carberry says:

      All the ones that are useful as examples, i.e. got it legislatively this century, i.e. all of them, did it incrementally.

      Vermont is Con Carry due to their particular state Constitutional wording as interpreted by their particular Supreme Court in a state case a century ago. None of that is relevant to today nor to any other jurisdiction.

      Alaska, the first modern Con Carry state, had no provision, -none-, for legal concealed carry inside municipalities until we got a shall-issue law, with terms much like Illinois, in 1994. We steadily improved that law, including loosening the training restrictions, getting preemption, removal of signage as legally binding, restaurant carry, and other things now the status quo for shall-issue, over the next decade.

      It was in 2004 that we got Permitless Carry. Arizona had a similar track, as have all the other recent Con Carry converts.

      The “all or nothing”, “no compromise” crowd have accomplished exactly none of their goals in that same time frame, with their attention-whoring ilk even costing the passage of Con Carry or at least permitless OC this year in Texas, based on statements by pro-gun legislators themselves.

      NAGR and GOA need to STFU in most cases until they can point to their positions actually, you know, -working- anywhere. (cue the but, but, NRA stabbed us in the back…)

  7. harp1034 says:

    Get what you can. Be careful you might end up with a 10 round limit down the road.

  8. borekfk says:

    Good ol’ Dudley Brown screwing it up for everyone else.

  9. Lance Lot Link says:

    The people of Colorado would be crazy not to accept a 30 round compromise. Gun owners should embrace it and treat it with the same respect and reverence the antis show; that a compromise merely creates a loophole that needs to be closed.

    Get back the 30 rounders. Then push for the 50 rounders, arguing that if citizens can be trusted with 30, they can be trusted with 50.

    Fight for every inch, whether by force, compromise or litigation. But never ever ever waste an opportunity to advance the front line into Anti territory.

    Incrementalism can be very effective for both sides, and not using it is just plain stupid.

    • HappyWarrior6 says:

      That’s a fine idea, except this was something we had that was taken from us, that you’re now wanting to restore back gradually. Note that this isn’t a case of a “constitutional carry” bill in a state with existing limited carry options.

      This was STOLEN from us. It’s not a case of cutting the loaf in half and worrying about halves. It’s a case of taking it back. Three years ago mags of any size were legal in Colorado. Let’s think about that basic premise.

      • Matthew Carberry says:

        But you can’t win. So the smart play is to win back part and then go for more.

        All or nothing means, in the really, real world, nothing.

        Being right, or having the law (properly interpreted) on your side is meaningless in the real world. That’s what the absolutists don’t seem to grasp.

        We -can- win incrementally, we have been doing it for decades. All or nothing has gotten exactly nothing in the same time frame.

      • Stephen says:

        Not stolen … voted out by our elected representatives. And then we couldn’t vote enough of them out to override it. And unless overridden by the courts it will stand. So not matter what you want to call it bottom line is we’ll be stuck with a 15 round limit as is, and a 30 round limit would be better. Don’t let perfect get in the way of better.

      • Alpheus says:

        Every law passed against gun rights is a bit of our rights stolen from us. We shouldn’t have to have permits to legally carry guns for self defense, for example…yet it because we have permits that we are now fighting for constitutional carry!

        Pushing for the increase from 15 to 30 would be pushing back against the thieves. It will demonstrate, yet again, that 15 (which seems to be the most popular limit, although 10 and 7 are also pushed) isn’t an acceptable limit; when we get 30, we will be able to show that blood won’t run in the streets yet again, so why bother having the restriction at all?

  10. K-Romulus says:

    The “compromise” idea is attractive, but the anti-gunowner crowd can just come back later and repudiate the “compromise”.. We lived through that in MD when the 20-year law allowing 20 round magazines was suddenly swept away in the post-Newtown hysteria.

    • Matthew Carberry says:

      That’s a battle you have a chance of winning. In the meantime you are gathering additional evidence that there is no statistical negative effect from 30 round mags.

      What there isn’t, is a chance of winning a full repeal.

    • JC_VA says:

      They’ll come back later and push for a 5 round limit. Why would you not want to push for a 30 round limit and force them to fight for a 20 round limit??

      See, this is the attitude I cannot stand. We KNOW they’ll be pushing for it. Are we to refuse to do ANYTHING as a result??

    • Sebastian says:

      Legislatures can always pass laws. It’s not like if we get full repeal they can’t come back later and pass a 10 round limit.

    • SPQR says:

      That’s a pretty silly reason not to amend the law up to 30 rounds.

    • janklow says:

      as a Marylander, i will say that at least increasing the limit stops screwing with handgun purchases in the state. which at least (while we had it) the 20-round limit did as well.

      MD as proof they’ll keep wanting to drop the limit? completely agree. but upping it to 30 is a respectable compromise.

  11. JC_VA says:

    NAGR appears to be the retirement home for curmudgeonly old gun owners of the type that got us into this mess in the first place.

  12. Lance Lot Link says:

    A compromise going from no limits to 30 rounds is a loss and should be fought against.

    A compromise going from 15 to 30 is a win and should be fought for.

  13. Peter O says:

    Seeing as Ohio just repealed a 30 round limit, I’d say take the 30 and go back for more when you can get it.

  14. HappyWarrior6 says:

    Go for 40 and I’d make a deal. I say 40 because I don’t know of any actual OEM mags with anything more than that unless it’s a beta mag. The reliability of a BM is pretty much zilch, so 40 would be my number to compromise and nothing less.

    • mike says:

      You’re a very outspoken promoter of losing ideas. Is this confined to your internet chest-beating, or are you just as out of touch in real life? Surely you have a YouTube channel filled with you explaining to the police that the 2nd Amendment is your carry permit and that your taxes pay their salary, right? Help a brother out, post a link to that comic gold!

      • HappyWarrior6 says:

        And why not tell us how you are helping the cause then, mike? You enjoy blind criticism but have no other alternatives to add to the debate other than insult. You have no idea who the people are you insult.

      • Sebastian says:

        Let’s not let this devolve to mud flinging.

    • Sam P says:

      FN PS90

  15. HappyWarrior6 says:

    Isn’t there anything “must pass” in the CO legislature these days, anyway? Attach a repeal or increase… Unless they have a germaneness requirement.

    How about attaching it to this? http://www.coloradoan.com/story/news/local/colorado/2015/04/23/colorado-lawmakers-start-work-pot-refund-proposal/26224219/

    • Alpheus says:

      As much as I’d support expanding the limit to 30 rounds instead of 15, this is certainly a valid approach as well!

      And it doesn’t just apply to guns, of course. When the House was trying to defund the questionable Illegal Alien Executive Order, the funding was tied to the Department of Homeland Security. How much better would it have been to have the funding tied to the passage of the funding of the Environmental Protection Agency, instead? As someone pointed out, if you’re going to hold something hostage, hold something that you are willing to shoot…

  16. Michael Bane says:

    Sebastian…agree 100% and have said so pretty emphatically on the podcast. Have discussed this with other top RKBA activists and they agree as well.

    Dudley Brown is the biggest impediment to chipping away at the bad Bloomberg laws in Colorado.

    Suggestions on how we get rid of this asshole and move forward?

    Michael B

    • Matthew Carberry says:

      First step is for the saner gun rights organizations to drop, or at least reduce, the soundbite BS and start explaining the pro-gun position in an intellectual way.

      To stop using the same fear-mongering, late-night tv commercial fundraising techniques NAGR and GOA use and explain why “X” bill is a real threat but “Y” bill is the same old crap that will never make it out of committee.

      In short, quit mimicking the idiots and immunize the pro-rights crowd from their idiocy by education.

      Marginalize them like real churches marginalize shyster late-night preachers.

      • Matthew Carberry says:

        Even more important, the rational gun rights groups have to quit pretending the others don’t exist and, if they won’t cooperate, at least give credit where credit is do.

        SAF and NRA, Calguns and the other state orgs that know how to get things done in the real world, need to form a coherent front, acknowledge and applaud each others successes, and make it clear the NAGR’s of the world are just so many Westboro Baptists.

  17. Publicola says:

    I respectfully disagree with Sebastian & Mr. Bane. Everyone else I most disrespectfully disagree with.

    Firstly, a proponent of “swatting” other gun owners for openly carrying or someone that tosses the “attention whore” nonsense at someone that has a different method of exercising a Right isn’t going to sway me. either we’re gunowners or we’re not, & this petty name calling & cowardly threats are out of place for folks allegedly on the same team. Though I suspect we’re not all on the same team.

    secondly, pragmatically it’s a bad idea to compromise in this manner, as even if the state GoP does win control in ’16, that does not mean they’d be on board with a full repeal. Until Bloomie the Hut bought the governors mansion & some congresscritters back in 2013 the gunowner control laws were being slapped on us by republicans. The state GoP didn’t really like the recalls (even though that’s what got them the senate this time around) & were even talking of primary-ing the one recall winner that gave them the senate (Woods). Hell, even this go round we had Thurlow (R-Grand Junction) siding with the dems half the time on gun laws.

    So going to 30 would mean at best we were stuck with 30.

    Also, a legislative majority is not the only way to repeal a law. As someone pointed out, there are things that must be passed – actually one thing, which is the budget. The repubs in the senate could have walked out & refused to pass said budget til a repeal was passed & signed. They either lacked the imagination, conviction, or stones. Possibly all 3.

    In court, would you find it easier to argue that a magazine ban is burdensome on the Right to arms if the limit was 2 rounds, or 99? Similarly, a 15 round limit that affects upwards of 50% of gun owners is easier to make a case for striking down than a 30 round limit which only affects 1% of gunowners.

    99% of gun owners would be happy with 30 rounders. That means we’d lose a lot of fire in efforts to get the remainder of the mag ban done away with. Remember, a lot of gunowners aren’t absolutist, or principled. Hell, we still deal with Fudds, or folks who think that everyone should have a license (CCW for example). Remember how hard the Fudds fought against the AWB after they were promised their wabbit guns wouldn’t be included? Same here – a 30 round limit will appease a good chunk of gunowners and lessen the pressure we can bring to get it repealed in its entirety.

    As for Brown – look, think he’s an ass all ya want, but he is correct on this & many other matters. As to why Colorado is in such a state if rmgo is the powerhouse its claimed they are – they’ve had to fight against antigunners, republicans, the NRA & the NRA state affiliate (the CSSA) on many pro gun matters. Owens (ex governor, allegedly republican) demanded no guns in schools on any ccw & a denial of sale for arrest without acquittal (instead of a conviction like it is in the federal law) & supported the “gunshow loophole” closure nonsense. Any permitless or constitutional carry bill has been opposed by the CSSA & a good chunk of republicans.

    So hate on Brown all ya want, but rmgo is the only pro gun org here. Want to tear them down? Fine, suggest a replacement – one more pro gun than the NRA or CSSA.

    About the all or nothing approach never working – how would you know? By all means, tell me when it’s been tried? When has the NRA, the 900 pound gorilla of gun rights, ever said “all or nothing”?

    I try not to dog out any gun org over soliciting donations. RMGO doe sit, so does SAF & NRA & every non-profit gunowners group. That’s the way it is. So bringing up that RMGO raises funds, or wants money, or uses scare tactics, is to simultaneously condemn the NRA & SAF & all the others for the same thing. As a point, it’s simply irrelevant as to why a gunowner group is cool or not.

    Incrementalism works for the other side, because it’s well suited to taking something away. It’s not the best in the long run for having something that already exists respected or recognized, because along the way the incrementalist approach cedes the idea that a government can interfere – it’s just arguing over what degree (“why yes mademoiselle, I do know what kind of girl you are; now we’re just haggling”).

    Besides, this wasn’t ever an actual proposal. Odds are some dem thought it’d be fun or useful to drop a piece of red meat twixt two dogs that don’t like each other. a lot of folks hate Brown & took the bait. Brown is quick to counter-attack & grabbed some bait as well. Meanwhile no one is looking at what the local dems didn’t want us to look too closely at.

    So, all this is nothing more than an academic exercise. If it were on the table we should oppose it, for both pragmatic & principled reasons.

    Want5 to get rid of the mag ban in Colorado? There are 3 approaches. 1 involves the legislature, the second involves the courts, & the last involves me (& every other person in Colorado). Legislatively they could set up a legislative blockade (I outlined the notion over at my place – scroll down for Colorado Solution). In the courts, Kopel has an appeal underway right now, though there’s 2 other approached that could be used in the courts, one an ICC strategy that is almost sure to work.

    So for folks who think that I or anyone else is in the wrong & we should do anything to get the mag ban repealed, I’d say it’s more appropriate to ask the repubs why they don’t force a stand off on getting it repealed, or ask folks why they haven’t pursued every available legal strategy (there are two left, not counting a more stern version of Kopel’s current attempt).

    One last point – & this is mainly trying to correct a misunderstanding sebastian has about Colorado; there is a strong libertarian streak, but there’s also a strong conservative streak as well as a strong progressive streak. depends on the area of the state you’re talking about. Woods won the senate race against Hudak’s replacement, thereby handing the senate to the republicans. RMGO backed Woods, who beat the establishment’s pick (Sias, who lost to Hudak in the first place). Out here the “strong social conservative” can win in some places, in others it can’t. Brown has a good idea of which districts are possible for either a conservative or libertarian streak. Besides, that line can be blurry twixt the two, especially from a thousand miles away. I’d like it if we were the bastion of libertarianism you imply that we are, but we’re not.

    • Patrick Henry, the 2nd says:

      So going to 30 would mean at best we were stuck with 30.

      Or more likely we will be stuck with 15. Take the deal. It’s not even a real deal. They are offering it for free. We can always fight for more. As someone pointed out, Ohio had a 31+ round ban and it was repealed. It’s a nice idea to ask the GOP to force a repeal but that’s a pipe dream. We need to take what we can get now and come back for more later. The next election force out those that voted against increasing the limit. Then get rid of it all together. It’s literally win win.

    • SPQR says:

      RMGO is not a powerhouse. They’ve done nothing for Colorado gun owners, and try to take credit for the work of NRA and CSSF all the time. RMGO focuses on winning GOP primaries and losing general elections.

  18. Michael Bane says:

    Pub, my apologies for speaking harshly of Mr. Brown. I suspect name-calling is the least of my sins. However, my overall critique stands.

    I have no faith in the Republicans, nor our ability to hold their feet to the fire. If we failed to do this in the most recent election cycle — which we clearly did — where the gun issues was at least in places front and center. how is it going to work in the next cycle?

    I live with an attorney, who has taught me that court cases are ALWAYS a crap shoot. I think if you ask Dave Kopel, he’d tell you the same thing.

    Where you and I part ways is whether incrementalism works on both sides of the argument. I heard exactly the same argument you made on the first concealed carry battle in Florida. If we pushed for concealed carry, it was de facto agreement that the government had a right to allow or disallow the carrying of firearms. Under the leadership of Marion Hammer we went down the “less pure” path on CCW.

    That act of incrementalism has not only worked beyond any of our wildest best case hopes, but has literally been the driver for the renaissance of our gun culture. The continuing move toward Constitutional carry (and even open carry initiatives in states like Texas) I believe is ONLY possible because of the “incremental” successes of CCW nationwide.

    Also note that CCW has not proven to be the end in itself even in states that are not (yet) pursuing Constitutional carry…issues of workplace, park, public buildings, etc. are being steadily chipped away.

    Do you actually believe that if, in the 1980s, we had all stood up and said HELL NO, it’s permitless carry or nothing!, that we’d have had the kind of nationwide successes we’ve had?

    I totally agree with you that Colorado is a more complex state than it has been described. But as you know, I am NOT a social conservative, nor do I have much sympathy for that agenda. I have spoken repeatedly from a small “L” libertarian perspective. As I said in my podcast a couple of weeks ago, HERE I STAND BLOODY BUT UNBOWED feels really good, but does not necessarily take us down the road we want to go.

    I spent a lot of money and came within a hairs-breath of losing my job after pulling my production out of the state, especially considering my employer was acquired by a major media/sports company headquartered in Denver. The vast majority of my production remains out of state. What that means for me personally is an ADDITIONAL 30+ days away from my home and family, on top of my “normal” travel schedule. I had been in serious discussions on building a small production facility, which I scrapped after the votes.

    My Sweetie and I made the decision to stay in Colorado and continue the fight. I have at times supported Dudley, but as I said on the podcast, our goal needs to be WIN, not guarantee our intellectual purity.

    I’ll quote my old friend Massad Ayoob, whom I spent some time with at NRA. “People who cry ‘all or nothing’ often get exactly that…nothing.”

    I agree with Patrick Henry’s post…take what we can get now, and come back for more later. Exactly how we achieved our CCW successes!

    Look forward to seeing you on the range, brother!

    mb

    • Sebastian says:

      I totally agree with you that Colorado is a more complex state than it has been described.

      I wouldn’t sell myself as any kind of expert or even all that knowledgeable of the nuances of Colorado politics, so I have no doubt things are more complicated than I realize.

    • Sebastian says:

      I agree with Patrick Henry’s post…take what we can get now, and come back for more later. Exactly how we achieved our CCW successes!

      To give you an idea of how meaningless a 30+ round ban is, I had no idea Ohio even had one. But even with all that, and even given Kasich being governor, who supported the original assault weapons ban, we still managed to get rid of it.

      Even if Dudley succeeded in his odd legislative maneuver, it still would have met Hick’s veto pen. If something passes with bipartisan support with key Dems behind it, chances are Hick will sign.

  19. Sebastian says:

    One thing that’s struck me is I would have previously thought Pennsylvania is in more serious trouble than Colorado (and I think we are, over the longer term), but the result of the 2014 elections here was unprecedented GOP control of the legislature. We lost the governorship, but Corbett was unpopular among conservatives because he accomplish exactly nothing of his promised agenda. Wolf won by not being Corbett, and he’s already off to a rocky start.

    I fear Colorado might have reached the high-water mark for GOP control this election. You may very well never get another chance to even get what’s being offered now. I believe if this deal isn’t taken, you’ll be stuck with that 15 round limit forever.

    • HappyWarrior6 says:

      There’s no such thing as “forever” in politics. Remember how much doom and gloom there was in 2012? The GOP could never take control of the senate…

      And PA? We did fine in 2014. I think we always have to stand our ground in electing and maintaining a pro-gun majority in the legislature. We’ve done that. I’m no more worries now than I was in 2012.

      So… Why the doom and gloom? Enough. Let’s go shooting! ;)

      • mike says:

        And PA? We did fine in 2014.

        It seems you didn’t catch the governor’s election results.

  20. Sebastian says:

    Also, California is running out of water. Like, very real chance some day people will turn on the taps in California, and nothing will come out. Where are all those people going to go? That would devastate the mountain west politically.

  21. Publicola says:

    Mr. Bane,
    The name calling business was more directed towards folks here that sling insults at other gun owners for carrying in a manner they disapprove of. Calling Dudley Brown names, or me for that matter, ain’t no thang. I have a nice collection of pejoratives set aside for Gottlieb myself. I just dislike seeing a gunowner trashing another gunowner for exercising a Right. Reminds me of Rosa Parks’ critiques within the civil rights movement. & you weren’t doing that.

    Florida had a shall issue ccw law passed in 1987. 28 years later they still have that shall issue ccw law. & no open carry. & no permitless carry. Last I heard, Florida even said through its courts that as long as they have one form of carry, then the other may be banned.

    Here, in Co, we’ve been trying to get a constitutional, or at least a permitless carry bill through since the late 90’s. The NRA & CSSA along with a bunch of very vocal, oft quoted-in-the-Pravda-on-the-Platte, ccw instructors have opposed it. Hell, even Perry of Texas has said he prefers training & a background check before they let folks tote a hogleg.

    Oh, contrary to Kopel’s statements in the above embedded vid, the shall issue ccw back in ’03 wasn’t opposed because it wasn’t perfect – it was opposed because it was the least palatable option pragmatically at the time. (for a much more detailed summation of how Colorado got where it is gun law wise, I shameless point y’all to [with Sebastian’s forbearance] this post of mine.)

    As an aside I might be alright with shall issue as a step towards constitutional carry. But that’s not how it works. Constitutional carry is usually (except in Vermont) done despite the folks who pushed hard for shall issue. If the NRA (or anyone else) came out & said “we have may issue, but we’re going for shall issue, then permitless, then constitutional carry” I’d perhaps have grudgingly supported it. But that ain’t what happened, or what they intended. They had a chance for Vermont carry in Illinois of all places, but their timidity caused them to fall back on drafting a shall issue law instead of pushing for constitutional carry in the courts.

    Yes, I think we’d be better off if we’d have not compromised so much & so often in the 80’s & 90’s. Things would look different, but be on better footing everyplace. The reasons why I think that are lengthy, & I ain’t exactly got no merit badges in terse, but simplifying things a lot I’d argue that when we go incremental it appeases significant parts of our own culture & makes it much harder to put political pressure on congresscritters to get things changed. (e.g. ban 31+ round mags & you’ll get some folks writing their reps & showing up at rallies & donating to their gunowner org of choice. Ban 2 round mags & phone systems at capitals overload.)

    I’m not a social conservative either. I’m a big L libertarian, until something more compatible with my conclusions comes along. I have not given up nearly as much as you have in this fight, though I gave up my career because of another governmental intrusion (legislature bans smoking in buildings they don’t own, & everyone’s surprised when bars lose money & musicians have to find other work. le grrrrr. ) I feel your pain & I do respect the sacrifices you’ve made.

    But “the perfect is the enemy of the good” can be summed up another way; “mediocrity is easy”. I think that it’s more a case of the good ambushing the perfect than the other way around (as in the shall issue ccw law debate here). As for Mr. Ayoob, I’d counter his quote with that old worn out one about trading liberty for security & getting neither. It’s tired & overused, but apt & true. If Mr. Ayoob wants to point out where my handgun technique is off, I’ll defer to his judgement. On the subject of Rights & how to secure them, I’ll stick with my own. Remember, a lot of folks don’t want more than shall issue. a lot of gun owners think open carry is a bit much. Just like a lot of hunters didn’t see the need for AR’s in the 90’s. we’re not all on the same team.

    I think if we were to trade our demand for full repeal now in exchange for 30 rounds, we would never get enough pressure on the repubs here to get a round more. & if the dems win in ’14, cause the repubs lost the gunowner base due to their compromise on this issue, then it’d go back to 15.

    & believe me, it does not feel good to stand here bloodied but now bowed. It does not feel good to know that my life is forfeit if some cop decides to count rounds in my mag, or asks if I got a background check for some lady I’m teaching to shoot. I’d much rather disappear quietly & not ever have to think about government ever again. No matter how fast, or precise, or stylish I may be, they have more guns. Eventually they’d get lucky, & by eventually I mean within seconds. It doesn’t feel good to say I won’t bow to them & they’ll just have to kill me. Saying “this stunning lady right here will have another Baltica, & I’ll have a maker’s Mark” feels good. Saying “well I woulda cleaned it but that 9th one dropped into the 10 ring” feels good. Saying “I’ll have a glass of tea” & knowing that it’ll come to the table as the Good Lord intended – with enough sugar to give the whole fishcamp diabetes – feels good. Telling an entity with relatively unlimited power that I’d rather die than bow to them doesn’t feel good at all. But doing what’s right doesn’t have to feel good, & that’s what I think is right.

    But, this is all a nice little academic exercise. Salazar wasn’t speaking for the party. His motives were likely to try to shore up his image since he only won by 201 votes last year. Or maybe just to get us gunowners fighting amongst ourselves. I really think this whole thing was done in the hopes it’d divide us & weaken our grassroots efforts. & so far it has a good chance of succeeding.

    Want the mag ban gone now? Right now? The repubs could still make a legislative stand, but they won’t. Kopel’s lawsuit may win on appeal, but it’s unlikely. A stronger worded lawsuit, & perhaps relying on the state constitution rather than the federal, may work, though it’s not a surity. But there’s another way, & I’ll email you about it shortly.

    If Workmageddon didn’t have me wiped I’d think about hitting that appleseed tomorrow. Hell, I’d even loan ya a Garand (Bloomie & Hick can go to hell); it’d be harder, but much more stylish than getting that patch with a Glock 43 (they’re good to 200 yards, right?) ;)

  22. Michael Bane says:

    A Garand??? Good Lord, Pub…what is that? A 1950s tractor? A medieval thumb torture machine??? Lindsay Lohan’s favorite household appliance???

    I had a mixed day at the Appleseed. For half a day I shot like a house afire from prone, drilling nice little 3 shots touching groups over and over again. Then I somewhat stupidly let something gum up my match chamber on the 9mm AR, and I pissed away a bunch of seated stages playing with the rifle. When I finally came to my senses and ran a bore snake through it, everything was copacetic. I cleaned the gun tonight, then took it out and fouled it.

    Sebastian, this would be the definition of “thread drift.”

    I’m not sure where we go from here. I agree that Salazar, who in my conversations with him exhibited slightly less intelligence that a prairie dog (name-calling again!) with none of the charm, was doing anything other than trying to save his ass.

    Still, Dudley Brown does not speak for me. I am tired of being roped into his little jihads. As an aside, Massad Ayoob has done more for gun rights standing on one foot than 99% of the people who claim to be “warriors.”. Mas was there in the beginning, when people like he and I were considered just short of lunatics. For me that counts for a lot. He also, as you note, pulls the trigger. One of the reasons I have great respect for you, Pub, is that you pull the trigger. I have met “activists” who, quite literally, couldn’t hit a 10 yard target with a 10/22. My dog can hit a 10 yard target with a 10/22. I met Sebastian and Bitter on a range. You wanna be in the gun culture, shoot guns. You wanna be in politics, please get as far away from me as possible…I suggest Mogadishu, or maybe Mars.

    And hey, if I had a damn Glock 43 I could get that second “Rifleman” patch no problemo!!!

    mb

  23. Publicola says:

    Oh I see there are heathens aplenty, even amongst the choir! I suppose you could plough a field with a Garand, from prone, one furrow at a time, & an IHC gapper is close to the same price point as a small John Deere…

    The thumb torture device stuff – ya know, in all my years messing with Garands it’s never been a problem. I’ve done more damage to my thumb on the internals of an 870. Sure, it can happen, but methinks in large part it’s do to operator error or an ignorance of the manual of arms.

    If miss Lohan thought of a Garand as a household appliance (I’ve long thought that an M1 or at least an M1A should be included with any new home purchase) my esteem for her would increase. Ah, if only I could get Jessica Alba or Katheryn Winnick hip to Garands…

    Been ages since I shot a match, but my usual malady is during rapid fire sitting to have a nice tight little fist sized group straddling the 8 & 7 rings. Once I did have a rather lovely improved cylinder pattern on one stage before realizing I’d forgotten to tighten down the rear sight.

    Curiosity overwhelms me though – what caused the gumming? & is it a blowback or gas gun?

    (how’s that for thread drift)

    On behalf of vermin everywhere I must protest your inference that prairie dogs are almost as dumb as Salazar. I’m sure they’re at least one standard deviation above him on any i.q. test.

    But I am convinced that this 30 round suggestion was not a serious proposal (unless they’re trying to patch a vulnerability in the mag ban). It has done a good job of creating infighting & diverting the focus of gunowners around here though. I’m just hoping it doesn’t end up being used to shore up the ban’s vulnerability.

  24. Publicola says:

    Sebastian,
    It’d quite literally take a book to explain it all, but Pa. is in more serious trouble than Co in the long run. That’s cause the gun culture, which is nothing more than the Scots-Irish culture (see? it’d take a book. Maybe two.) is more firmly rooted here than there. Here it’s at least matching if not exceeding the other cultures present. There, unless I’m just mistaken, it’s not the dominant culture (& its influence wanes the further north & east from PA. one gets). That doesn’t mean only scots-irish converts are good on guns, just that it’s a central part of our culture, along with other things that are complementary to weapons ownership. Other cultures are less focused on weapons & individualism than other things.

    But yes, the taps go dry in Cali (or worse – the lawns turn brown in southern Cal!) they’ll flee someplace & Colorado will be swamped with folks who vote little different than they do in Mass or NY or NJ. It won’t all be over, but it will be much, much harder. Hopefully that State of Jefferson project will get off the ground – might end up saving Cali before we get over run (hell, it has a better chance than whatever the cali legislature has been proposing, but that’s a fairly low bar…)

    • HappyWarrior6 says:

      I don’t see the gun culture having a problem here. Like I said we have more pro-gun success in the legislature. If we keep going like this we could have a veto-proof pro-gun majority . If gun owners get lazy it will be the same story here as anywhere else. However, let’s be honest. Tom Corbett was the problem, not the GOP or gun rights. The first governor to break the re-election streak?

top