On Tuesday the Colorado Senate decided 21-13 in a voice vote to pass a bill that would repeal the state’s 15-round limit on ammunition magazines. According to The Denver Post, the bill is now awaiting a final vote as early as this week before being sent to the House, where Speaker Dickey Lee Hullinghorst (D-Boulder) stated that it will not pass despite popular support from gun owners.

The magazine limit, which banned the sale of any magazine capable of holding more than 15 rounds, is part of a package of gun control measures that were signed into law in 2013 shortly after the Sandy Hook shooting. With gun control once again on the forefront of national debate in the early months of 2013, Colorado’s Democrat-controlled legislature managed to pass a number of restrictive firearm-related laws, which also included a ban on “assault weapons” and overhauled the state’s background check system. As a state that has a reputation for gun ownership and self-reliance, the laws came as a big surprise to many pro-gun advocates and the ensuing controversy resulted in the recall of two Democratic state senators. When Republicans regained a majority in the state Senate last November—the first time in a decade—lawmakers made it a priority to repeal the state’s restrictive gun laws, starting with the magazine ban.

“It’s an inanimate object,” Senator John Cooke (R-Greeley) told The Coloradoan regarding the magazines. “This is not evil. What is evil is in the hearts and the minds of men, and that’s what we need to work on.”

Critics of the magazine limit argue that the law does little to improve public safety and is hard to enforce. Law enforcement officers have said that it is near impossible to identify standard-capacity magazines purchased before the ban took effect, and those bought after. In fact, 55 of the state’s 62 elected sheriffs agreed, citing “practical difficulties” with the law and refusing to enforce it entirely or else placing enforcement of the law at “a very low priority.”

Supporters of the magazine limit however, say that the law will prevent mass shooters from using magazines with over 15 rounds, which could save lives. Observers agree that the Republican-backed bill may have a tough time surviving the Democrat-controlled house, which is resistant to repealing the 2013 law and has already rejected a similar bill previously. If the bill does pass the Senate in its final vote as expected, the legislation will likely go to the House’s Committee on State, Veterans and Military Affairs. Should it pass the house, the bill will then be sent to Governor John Hickenlooper, a vocal supporter of the magazine ban.

Image is public domain.

What's Your Reaction?

Like
Like Love Haha Wow Sad Angry
  • Secundius

    No State can supercede Federal Law…

    • salmonhair

      “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.”

      10th amendment.

      • Secundius

        @ salmonhair.

        Read the Supremacy Clause of Article VI…

      • salmonhair

        This doesn’t mean that any federal law supersedes state law. Otherwise the federal government could come in and essentially say f— you state, we just decided to make this law. Why do you think nearly every Supreme court case in the last 200 years had to go to court to decide whether or not the federal government had authority? If federal law always superseded state law there would be no need to argue any cases. How is it open carry can be legal in Michigan, but banned in florida and texas? Why is same-sex marriage only legal in some states, but not others? Why do we even need a a court to figure that out?

        There are only certain instances when federal law can override state law.

      • Secundius

        @ salmonhair.

        I never said the Federal Law supersedes State Laws, what I said that State Laws can’t supersede Federal Laws…

      • salmonhair

        That’s two ways of saying the same thing.

        One has to supersede the other. They can’t be equal. There are instances where federal law rules, but in every other instance the state law does supersede the federal law. There are also instances where your individual liberty supersedes both state and federal laws. For example, we no longer have slave states and non-slave states because slaves were declared free and to do so violated their individual rights as free people. Previously the states could decide for themselves and the federal government could do nothing because slaves were property.

  • Bryan

    So, in essence the state which legalized marijuana sales and showed that the legalization of an illegal item both lowered crime rates and increased local and state income has a Governor who is balking on doing the same with magazine restrictions. Yeah, fine example of how politicians are far more concerned about pushing their ideology than ensuring the welfare of their state.

    • Secundius

      @ Bryan.

      I can’t think of one state that has the manpower to govern Federal and States combined. That’s why there’s a FBI unit in each state and territories…

  • Secundius

    There called “Screwball Laws”. On the Surface they have meaning, but below the surface. They don’t mean a thing…

  • Jody_wy

    No State can supercede Federal Law… so explain to me how Colorado marijuana law dose not not superseding Federal law

    • Secundius

      @ Jody_wy.

      I can’t. As society changes, so do the laws, There are a lot of Obsolete laws on the books that need to be purged, or modified to keep up with the modern lifestyle of a changing country. For Example, in Maryland is illegal to posses or use fireworks in a public area. Matches are considered a Firework, so lighting a match on a public sidewalk. Can get you thrown in jail. In Virginia, it illegal to kiss your girlfriend or wife in public. You might not like it, but currently that’s the way it is. Insurrection is considered Treason, and Treason can in some State get you the Death Penalty. Think before you do something you might regret later, And you can’t change an actionable act…

    • Secundius

      @ Jody_wy.

      Very simply put, It Doesn’t…

  • Eric

    Laws will not stop lawbreakers! It just creates a stronger black market. Im glad I live in Missouri. If I moved to Colorado, I would become a lawbreaking person. I love your land, but see bad signs of Obama syndrome.

    • Secundius

      @ Eric.

      Really, it’s ALL Obama’s fault. The GOP controlled Congress, shouldn’t Shoulder ANY of the Responsibilities for running the Country. Interesting theory…

    • Secundius

      @ Eric.

      There’s been a Black Market for hard-to-get good’s since the rise of civilizations began. Just like Prostitution, Supply and Demand…

  • Secundius

    Supremacy Clause of Article VI.

    The Constitution does not contain any clause expressly providing that the states have the power to declare Federal Law unconstitutional. States are not entitled to nullify Federal Law. Any law that interferes with a valid Federal Law is unconstitutional. The Federal Law is supreme over state law.