-
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
Living in Colorado, I have a little more information than Luca does about what just happened here.
Luca is absolutely right that sheriffs here, notably my friend John Cooke of Weld County, have announced that they will not attempt to enforce the magazine ban bill. But Luca is, sadly, not right to say that unenforceability is the law’s biggest flaw.
The “high-capacity” (which means standard capacity most of the time) magazine ban includes not just magazines over 15 rounds, but magazines which are “designed to be readily converted” into having a capacity over 15 rounds.
Many magazines, including standard magazines for Glock handguns (which I’m told are the most popular handguns in the US), have a removable metal plate at the bottom used both for cleaning and for adding a small extender which allows for a few extra bullets, in Glock’s case taking the magazine from 15 rounds to 19 rounds.
In other words, the magazine law bans the sale of standard 15-round Glock magazines, and other similar magazines, making a newly purchased Glock nothng more than a paperweight for someone who does not already own the magazines.
Furthermore, while the horrendous “background check” law, which is really an anti-transfer law, has provisions for the transfer of guns in limited circumstances without a background check, such as gifts from parents to children or grandparents to grandchildren (but not loans of guns among those same people!), the magazine ban has no such provision.
Therefore, you may keep a gun with a magazine of more than 15 rounds (or which is designed to be readily converted to more than 15 rounds) if you own it before July 1st. And you may give the gun to your son but you may not give him the magazine. So if you want your son or grandson to own any magazines which the law covers, you must give them to him before July 1st.
One must wonder whether the Democrat drafters of this bill are stupid or whether they knew exactly what they were doing.
Obviously this is unenforceable, and that is a big flaw, but on the other hand it is a good thing that such a stupid, ineffectual law is unenforceable and will go substantially unenforced.
By the way, how’s this for contrast from our neighboring state?
View all comments (6) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Ross Kaminsky
http://spectator.org/blog/2013/03/20/more-on-colorado-gun-laws
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| 3.21.13 @ 7:07AM
New Mexico's attempt at gun control failed ... this year.
JD| 3.21.13 @ 11:39AM
But Ross, we have to pass the bill to see what's in it!
Honest truth: you're my second favorite TAS writer, after Sowell. Maybe it's because we live in the same city. But more likely, it's because we disagree on some things, and you seem like the very rare person who will discuss disagreements sincerely.
Which is why I'm not letting go of what I see as your contradictory positions: The GOP should let go of "social issues", but stand against "gun control".
The Leftist sees abortion, gay "marriage", and gun control as "social issues" on which the Right is losing in polls. The argument to abandon them in order to build a bigger tent on "fiscal conservatism" is the same for all three.
You have stated that we should abandon "social issues" for this reason, but reject my inclusion of "gun control" because it violates a natural right. But my opposition to abortion is ALSO because it violates a natural right! I know you disagree that it does, but now what is our disagreement? It's on the application of natural rights.
And so it is with every "social issue". No one no the Right wants government managing our lives beyond the defense of natural rights - that's what makes us right-wing! To say that we should abandon "social issues" and only defend natural rights is straw man slander - the suggestion that we are asking for government intervention in what we do not see as a natural rights issue. We are not.
JD| 3.21.13 @ 11:52AM
If some "fiscal conservative" believes that "gun control" does not violate natural rights (and many do, though I am not among them), he could demand that you, Ross Kaminsky, abandon "social issues" in order to build a bigger tent in support of fiscal conservatism. He would thus do exactly the same thing that you do to abortion opponents.
It would be the same in that it would be an effort to get people to give up the argument on the personhood of the unborn (or the right to guns) without actually engaging and winning the argument, using the vague, generic application of the label "social issue". This is not a fair, honest way to win an argument.
There is objective truth. On the personhood of the unborn, the right to guns, etc, there is an Answer. Freedom of speech is a tool in discerning that answer, but should not be confused with the idea that the answer is subjective.
But if you're certain that you have the Answers, that's all the more reason to expect that you can defend them. Simply declaring that because YOU believe X is a natural right and Y is not, that defenders of Y, who think that Y is a natural right, should be beaten-down with the simple pronouncement that they need to "abandon social issues" - this is how Leftists argue.
See my comments on William Murchison's article (oh, come on, I read YOUR articles!):
http://spectator.org/archives/.....temptation
Ross Kaminsky| 3.21.13 @ 9:18PM
JD,
I'd rather have this discussion over beer.
I'm really just not that interested in social issues, but for me basically everything comes down to my supporting liberty.
I understand that if a person believes abortion is murder, there can be no compromise on the issue.
I don't see it as murder...at least not in early months. Not sure about later on in a pregnancy...hard to know where to draw such a line.
But guns are a different issue. They impact society as a whole and our relationship to our government, which is why it's explicitly protected in the Constitution.
Best,
Ross
Stan Redmond| 3.21.13 @ 3:07PM
I've said it before and I'll say it again. If our smarty pants politicians would outlaw crime we wouldn't have any more problems. Geesh, do I have to do all the thinking here?
JD| 3.21.13 @ 3:25PM
I'd settle for outlawing unintended consequences.