The Second Amendment
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." - Ratified 15 December 1791
Supreme Court Decisions
U.S. v. Cruikshank (1876)
Author: Morrison R. Waite
The Second Amendment declares that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, but this means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government.
Presser v. Illinois (1886)
Author: William Burnham Woods
In view of the fact that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force of the national government, as well as in view of its general powers, the states cannot prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security.
District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)
Author: Antonin Scalia
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010)
Author: Samuel A. Alito, Jr.
The Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense. (In other words, the right is protected from state as well as federal interference.)
Caetano v. Massachusetts (2016)
Author: Per Curiam
The Second Amendment extends to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding, and this Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the states.
New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen (2022)
Author: Clarence Thomas
When the Second Amendment's plain text covers an individual's conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. To justify a firearm regulation, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation.
The Bill
December 13, 2024 HB24-1292 was introduced even after a mountain of Supreme Court affirmations of the Second Amendment.
In the entirety of the document there has been zero effort to define what a "mass shooting" is but they claim mass shootings are the center point of the bill, however the document does define an "assault weapon" as "A SEMIAUTOMATIC RIFLE THAT HAS THE CAPACITY TO ACCEPT A DETACHABLE MAGAZINE, OR THAT MAY BE READILY MODIFIED TO ACCEPT A DETACHABLE MAGAZINE and has one or more of the following features ... A SHROUD ATTACHED TO THE BARREL, OR THAT PARTIALLY OR COMPLETELY ENCIRCLES THE BARREL, ALLOWING THE BEARER TO HOLD THE FIREARM WITH THE NON-TRIGGER HAND WITHOUT BEING BURNED"
This definition makes all semi-auto rifles that accepts a detachable magazine an "assault rifle". The document fails to define what a "shroud" is, and therefore is left to interpretation. Anyone can feasibly argue a the forend of a stock is a shroud that partially encircles the barrel and prevents the shooter from being burned. Additionally, if this bill is passed the definition of "assault weapon" can be easily amended to mean anything the anti-freedom populace would want it to mean, to include knives.
The document goes even further by dictating that all AR and AK types are “assault weapons”, some of the most common firearms used in the United States of America today. These firearm types are used by law enforcement to DEFEND others. These firearm types are also used by military forces world wide to DEFEND personnel and equipment. In fact, the Colorado General Assembly security teams have these types of firearms to DEFEND the Colorado General Assembly.
These types of firearms are also used everyday by law abiding citizens for sport, hunting, defense, and training. Might I remind this body as per the Colorado State Constitution, that the Colorado Militia can be activated by the Governor and that militia is to be composed of Colorado Citizens. Those citizens, who love this state and this country, need to be well armed if called. At one point in our history, citizens were required to be armed for the DEFENSE of life and liberty and they were to bring their own firearms!
The document continues by classifying .50 Caliber rifles, regardless of features, an "assault weapon" there is ZERO evidence to warrant any such legislation to ban them outright, infringing on Colorado Citizens right to bear arms as defined in the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. The bill is labeled “Prohibit Certain Weapons Used in Mass Shootings” so why the .50 Caliber Rifle addition?
The document gets worse by defining semi-auto pistols as "assault weapons" if they are capable of accepting a detachable magazine and, get this, has a threaded barrel! A threaded barrel DOES NOT make a firearm more or less lethal, it does not make a firearm more or less accurate, and it does not reduce or increase the recoil. Again, this is made up from the anti-freedom caucus to infringe on American rights!
The insanity continues with defining semi-auto shotguns as "assault weapons" if they have a pistol grip or a rotating cylinder. I would not assume many In the Colorado general assembly are avid hunters, nor would I assume many know anything about firearms. There are several shotguns that have pistol grips used for hunting and defense. The claim that these shotguns are dangerous and unusual falls flat on its face. Much like the claims for the .50 caliber rifle and handguns with threaded barrels.
Anti-freedom representatives such as the two prime sponsors of this bill, realized they can not just ban semi-auto rifles because they are not used in the vast majority of violent crime. Therefore, they can not pull on the heartstrings of their ill informed populace. They opted instead to use the term "assault weapons" to prohibit just about every semi-automatic firearm under the sun from law abiding citizens. This is what freedom loving people would call a gun grab. Yes they are going after all guns and this is just a stepping stone.
Furthermore, in Paragraph 2 this document asserts that "ASSAULT WEAPONS ARE NOT SUITABLE FOR SELF DEFENSE AND ARE NOT WELL-SUITED FOR HUNTING, SPORTING, OR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN MASS KILLING" There is not one subjective opinion that allows the general assembly to determine what firearm, or weapon, is suitable for self-defense! All firearms can be and are suitable for defense depending on a multitude of criterion that can only be determined by the person who is defending one-self. The weak, fragile, beta, feeble sponsors of this bill could not defend themselves from a snow flake much less know what to use.
As I have mentioned earlier, the AR rifles that this bill wants to ban are used to DEFEND this country, its citizens, and the United States Constitution every day! Additionally, there are various other reasons to own an "assault weapon" that have nothing to do with harming another human being. Some of those reasons are hunting, collection, competitions such as Precision Rifle Shooting; Practical Pistol Shooting; Defensive Pistol Shooting, 3-Gun (AR, Pistol, and Shotgun); and Sporting Clay Shooting. Most importantly keeping and bearing arms is a Constitutional Right regardless of any bad actors actions, to include the actions of any mass shooter or how gut-wrenching the outcome.
In Paragraph 2.c. this bill asserts that "AFTER THE FEDERAL ASSAULT WEAPON BAN EXPIRED IN 2004, GUN MASSACRES SKYROCKETED BY APPROXIMATELY ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY-THREE PERCENT." Notice how this bill specifically targets "gun massacres" and ignores the fact that violence with firearms has significantly decreased nationwide.
The published April 2022 study by Bureau of Justice Statistics concluded, "The rate of firearm homicide per 100,000 persons age 12 or older declined 41% across the 26-year period of 1993 to 2018" Additionally, according to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, from 2019 to 2022 the average per capita homicide rate with a firearm is 5.57/100k which is a 16% decrease in homicides by firearm from the expiration of the gun grabbers coveted 1994 Assault Weapons Ban.
This bill also states, "IN THE TEN YEARS THAT ASSAULT WEAPONS WERE LIMITED BY A FEDERAL BAN, GUN MASSACRES DROPPED DRASTICALLY, BY AT LEAST THIRTY-SEVEN PERCENT." which is an outright lie of magnificent proportions. Mass shootings actually increased compared to the 10 year period prior to 1994.
The Violence Project clearly explains pre-, during, and post- 1994 Assault Weapons Ban. Interestingly enough the gun grabbers tout on their 94’ Assault Weapons Ban as something that would prevent mass shootings with "assault weapons" in the future, however in the decade pre-94 there were 25 cases of mass shootings 6 of those an "assault rifle" was used which is 24% of the total. During the baned period from 1994-2004 there were 33 mass shootings (an increase from the preceding decade) were the use of an "assault rifle" slightly decreased to 21% of the total. However, in the following decade the use of "assault rifles" in mass shootings decreased to 17% of the total (8 uses out of 46 mass shootings). There has been a significant increase from 2014 to present, but why? It is most definitely not because the 94’ Assault Weapons Ban expired. Even if you wanted to hang your hat on the effectiveness the 94’ Assault Weapons Ban produced, you could only assert a 3% effectiveness which clearly demonstrates the gun is not the problem.
In the last 9 years (2014-2023) we have seen our government sell out Americans and the United States.
We have deployed fathers, wifes, husbands, and mothers to significant wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, causing a disproportionate amount of stress on fathers and husbands who could not father their children and who could not be a husband to their wives. Only to pull out of Afghanistan so abruptly that it significantly impacted thousands of those Service Members and Veterans who thought we (Americans) were in the fight to free the Afghans from tyranny.
We were lied to about the pandemic while being forced to take vaccines and wear muzzle devices.
Taxes have increased both on a state and federal level.
Our borders are not secure and we welcome unvetted personnel in with open arms knowing full well some have arrived to do Americans harm.
The government continues to get us involved with other wars in Ukraine and Israel by spending money we don't have failing to help American families, especially those who are homeless.
We are told that masculinity is toxic and all whites are racist.
We are told our children can cut their genitals off and we should be supportive of their delusions regardless of biblical, moral, or ethical convictions.
We are told January 6th was an "insurrection" but the widespread violence during the preceding election year was "mostly peaceful".
Law Enforcement Officers can not do their jobs without fear of being prosecuted.
We are forced by law to get health insurance (Obama Care) which is an added cost of living.
All of these are contributions to the shootings that have occurred over the last decade.
The bill asserts it will save lives so let's compare deaths to deaths regardless of race, sex, gender, age, or other forms of segregation considering this body wants to infringe on Constitutional Rights while invoking community health as a justifiable reason to do so.
In 2022 in accordance with data from the Colorado Center for Health and Environment Data there were 304 homicides where a firearm was used, 31 of which were in the 0-18 age range. Additionally, there were 690 suicides where a fiream was used during the same year, of those, 31 were in the 0-18 age range while the suicide rate rose significantly starting at 25-years-of-age mark possibly showing a correlation between age and life stressors that contribute to suicidal thoughts. However, according to the Colorado Department of Transportation there were 699 deaths as a result of motor vehicle crashes, all of which one could safely assume noone committed suicide by crashing their vehicle.
So of the three separate events that affect Colorado families, two of them stem from constitutionally protected rights (Second Amendment) and one of them stems from privilege (Driving). Instead of going after the two most disastrous causes of deaths, suicides and vehicle accidents, the Colorado General Assembly wants to attack Colorado Citizen’s Second Amendment protections.
Seems like the Colorado General Assembly would be better at serving the citizens of Colorado if they could pass laws to help those who may be in need (Suicide Prevention) and/or pass laws or further strengthen laws that would decrease the number of crashes instead of infringing on constitutional rights.