-
Laughing to Keep From Crying
May 17, 2013 | 1 comment
-
I’m Melting, Melting!
May 16, 2013 | 5 comments
-
Delaware’s Unclaimed Property Racket: John Gotti Would Be Proud
May 16, 2013 | 1 comment
-
Rep. Cleaver: GOP Concerns with IRS Due to Obama’s Skin Color
May 16, 2013 | 9 comments
-
Lawsuit Accuses IRS of Stealing Medical Records of 10 Million Americans
May 15, 2013 | 3 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Colorado State Senator Greg Brophy (R-Wray), in debating the Michael Bloomberg-pushed “high capacity” gun magazine ban in Colorado, announced that if the bill becomes law, he will not obey it.
Neither will I, and I imagine many thousands of other Coloradoans will also refuse to comply. (The link and embedded video below start at the 10:48 point in Brophy’s testimony where he says this, followed by cheers from the gallery that the Senate President silences with the gavel. But I encourage you also to watch the entire 12 minutes.)
http://youtu.be/6ou8EhWfr3k?t=10m48s
Not only does the measure ban pistol and rifle magazines with capacity greater than 15 rounds, but it bans magazines which are “designed to be readily converted to accept more than 15 rounds.” As Senator Brophy explained at the beginning of his testimony, this bill makes illegal the standard magazines of 15-round (or less) capacity for many guns, including Glock pistols, probably the most popular handguns in the United States, because Glock magazines and most others include a removable base plate which allows an extender to be attached. Thus the 15-round magazine is “designed to be readily converted” to exceed that limit, and is thus illegal even if not converted.
At least unless and until Glock makes a magazine without a removable base plate (which is also useful for magazine cleaning), the magazine ban effectively bans the sale of many or most handguns.
It is time for those who support Second Amendment rights to stand up even more aggressively (but not violently) against these out-of-control anti-gun bills, including by contacting Governor John Hickenlooper to let him know that we will refuse to abide by this law.
Greg Brophy is truly a champion for the rights of Coloradoans. (And to be clear, I’m fairly impressed with most of our Republican state senators on that score.) It is a long time until the next election, but I trust that Democrats will be harshly punished for ramming unpopular legislation down their constituents’ throats in the service of Michael Bloomberg and Joe Biden. If they want to represent New York and Washington, DC, I encourage them to move there. Until then, it will be the voters’ job to move them out of their seats in the legislature.
View all comments (7) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Ross Kaminsky
http://spectator.org/blog/2013/03/15/conservative-civil-disobedienc
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Pecos Pete| 3.15.13 @ 12:08PM
In New Mexico, at least so far and the legislative session ends tomorrow, there has been no damage to current gun freedoms in the state. Yet, the dingbatOcrats will continue to try. Should they ever be successful then I too will refuse to comply with such laws.
Derek Leaberry| 3.15.13 @ 12:38PM
Nor will I abide by O'Malley's restrictions in Maryland.
Big Bob| 3.15.13 @ 1:25PM
Obama himself has picked through laws with which he disagrees in an attempt to pass judgement. DOMA? why bother? I don't see anyone casting aspersions on HIS decisions. I would hope more would take your position. It's time the left realize they are in over their collectivist heads.
JD| 3.15.13 @ 1:30PM
You know, Ross, some would say that it's disingenuous of you to be harping so much on this "social issue" when you otherwise claim that harping on "social issues" is a bad idea that costs "fiscal conservatism" greatly in elections.
I've made the argument in the past that only a Leftist's misunderstanding of what rights and money are could allow one to think the two are separable. Methinks, at least to some degree, this article is evidence that you see it.
The less flattering explanation is that you're simply one of millions whose interest in "social issues" depends on what he personally wants to do, like the hipster libertarians who are obsessed with pot legalization above all else. For such people, ideology is just a rationalization for ambition.
Ross Kaminsky| 3.15.13 @ 3:22PM
JD, this is an explicitly protected constitutional right, and more importantly a natural right. This is not about what people ingest or what they do in their bedrooms, and I do not consider it a "social issue."
JD| 3.15.13 @ 3:39PM
I'm glad you agree that the definition of natural right supersedes any written document.
Yet you know well that millions fight to protect the natural right to life when they oppose abortion, and you've written that Republicans should abandon that fight in the name of progress on "economic" issues.
Of course you don't believe that abortion violates the natural right to life. But you know what? Leftists argue that their gun control laws don't violate natural rights either!
YOU define a difference between "gun control" and "social issues" by defining "social conservatives" as people who want government to enforce social policy beyond the mere protection of natural rights. But that is not what we believe at all.
We believe in protecting the natural right to life in all instances. We don't believe in government getting involved in social relationships, including the endorsement of partnerships and the giving of tax preferences to them. I've never heard of one of us actually trying to ban homosexuality.
And furthermore, we believe that while government can't well coerce social behaviors, it is nonetheless true that some are better than others, and that society's well being depends on picking good ones. Your article on raising boys shows that you see that.
JD| 3.15.13 @ 3:45PM
What I can't rationalize is your support for a conservative position on "gun control" while suggesting that we should abandon the other issues, under the mantra of "fiscal conservatism", not "social issues".
Your reasoning for abandoning the other issues is that they will lose elections and cost us what truly matters - "fiscal conservatism". Yet gun control is the same - polls are against us, and some "fiscal conservatives" are too.
You need to admit that it's not really about "social issues" vs "fiscal conservatism". YOU simply disagree on the personhood of the unborn, but agree with other conservatives on gun control. It's not whether the issue is "social" or not. That's just ideological cover.
You should admit that you want Republicans to abandon abortion because you don't believe in the personhood of the unborn, not because of any categorical distinction.