Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 3/25/2006 4:23:55 PM EDT
I currently live in California and might be moving to the Denver area. After searching thru some threads here, I still would like some more info! Is it leagal to have an assault weapon in Colorado? Or is it banned by city such as Denver? If so, I will buy a home in another city! Thanks for the help!!
Link Posted: 3/25/2006 5:12:15 PM EDT
Denver=Assault weapons ban Danger Cali man, Danger!!! The rest of the state ,except boulder, is shooter friendly
Link Posted: 3/25/2006 6:45:10 PM EDT
The City and County of Denver has a ban, however all surrounding suburbs still are good to go.
Link Posted: 3/25/2006 7:05:03 PM EDT
I moved to CO from CA about 18 months ago. The difference is amazing. You won't believe how liberal the gun laws are here. You can buy ARs, AKs, FALs, etc all high capacity here.

Bottom line (except for Denver???) is you can pretty much own and still buy all the stuff that is on the CA ban list.

It is like moving to a state that still has personal freedom. Your gonna like it here.
Link Posted: 3/27/2006 12:50:54 PM EDT
Plus, if you have the $$$, you can buy all the NFA toys you want. We have several C3 dealers in CO.
Link Posted: 3/27/2006 3:01:35 PM EDT
Starting July 1 you can't smoke in restaurants though.
Link Posted: 3/27/2006 6:46:43 PM EDT
You can hunt small game also with an AR-15. In addition, it is legal to hunt small game using a full auto. You cannot use full auto for large game. The full auto would work well when surrounded by ground hogs.
Link Posted: 3/27/2006 8:47:41 PM EDT

Originally Posted By rtr:
Starting July 1 you can't smoke in restaurants though.



Starting July 1st you can go to a bar, actually enjoy your beer, and go home without smelling like an ashtray.
Link Posted: 3/27/2006 9:26:51 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Adam_White:

Originally Posted By rtr:
Starting July 1 you can't smoke in restaurants though.



Starting July 1st you can go to a bar, actually enjoy your beer, and go home without smelling like an ashtray.

+1
Link Posted: 3/28/2006 5:30:49 AM EDT

Starting July 1st you can go to a bar, actually enjoy your beer, and go home without smelling like an ashtray.



Starting July 1st the gov can tell private business owners what they can and can't do on their own property and how to run their business. Isn't it great! I hope they start telling resturaunts they can no longer serve fatty food too.
Link Posted: 3/28/2006 5:10:53 PM EDT

Originally Posted By AR15:

Starting July 1st you can go to a bar, actually enjoy your beer, and go home without smelling like an ashtray.



Starting July 1st the gov can tell private business owners what they can and can't do on their own property and how to run their business. Isn't it great! I hope they start telling resturaunts they can no longer serve fatty food too.



Fatty food won't leap off of one customers plate & down another's throat...
Link Posted: 3/28/2006 8:21:11 PM EDT
Ahh yes the smoking ban will make us all avoid second hand smoke, because of course we have no choice about what bars/restaurants, etc. we go into.

I hope next that they ban consumption of alcohol in public places, think of the thousands of lives it would save every year.

Smoking is a disgusting, filthy, unhealthy habit. But this ban is government intrusion on the rights of private business owners and their customers who are free to chose what legal activities they engage in. It is only the beginning. I'm horribly disappointed that some of my fellow gunowners do not understand that.
Link Posted: 3/28/2006 8:50:49 PM EDT
Holy fucking thread hijack

Yes, CO is astonishly shooter friendly (one of the best states for sure), save for the aforementioned socialist strongholds.
Link Posted: 3/29/2006 6:12:26 AM EDT

Originally Posted By rtr:
Ahh yes the smoking ban will make us all avoid second hand smoke, because of course we have no choice about what bars/restaurants, etc. we go into.

I hope next that they ban consumption of alcohol in public places, think of the thousands of lives it would save every year.

Smoking is a disgusting, filthy, unhealthy habit. But this ban is government intrusion on the rights of private business owners and their customers who are free to chose what legal activities they engage in. It is only the beginning. I'm horribly disappointed that some of my fellow gunowners do not understand that.



If even ONE bar owner had the brains to outlaw smoking, I'd agree with you. None seem to, however.

I guess you might claim that there is economic reasons in supporting them - but reality has proven otherwise.

No bar or resaurant has lost customers, and every one that opens a cigarette-friendy alternative (in states, like Missouri, that allowed business owners to have one) - the "cigarette friendly" places have closed down for lack of customers.

The fact is that cigarette cmokers are a small minority that pollutes the air everyone else has to breath. If they want to smoke, they can smoke outside. It is no different from when I want to piss, I need to find a bathroom.

To link this to shooting - shooting is a legal activity, but their is a time and a place for it. Same with smoking. Anytime your legal act disrupts others, things change.
Link Posted: 3/29/2006 9:34:53 AM EDT
Here is a list of smoke free places in the whole state.

http://www.smokefreeworld.com/colorado.shtml

It's not an economic issue, it's a private property rights issue. Tyranny of the majority is a scary thing, this time it's smoking, next time it might be something that you enjoy (like assault weapons or full auto weapons). Not standing up for principle because you too do not like smoke is awfully short sighted in my opinion.

Perhaps we can progress like Texas has to where one can be arrested for being drunk in a private establishment http://www.dfw.com/mld/startelegram/news/state/14209752.htm
Afterall just like the smoking ban it is for our health, and who knows better than I how to keep myself healthy, than of course the government and the millions of complicit citizens who are overjoyed that they will no longer have to be exposed to cigarette smoke.

The next time the nannyist state oversteps its bounds and forces society to do things it is perfectly capable of making its own choices about, remember that you supported the smoking ban.
Link Posted: 3/29/2006 10:11:02 AM EDT

Originally Posted By rtr:
Here is a list of smoke free places in the whole state.

http://www.smokefreeworld.com/colorado.shtml

It's not an economic issue, it's a private property rights issue. Tyranny of the majority is a scary thing, this time it's smoking, next time it might be something that you enjoy (like assault weapons or full auto weapons). Not standing up for principle because you too do not like smoke is awfully short sighted in my opinion.

Perhaps we can progress like Texas has to where one can be arrested for being drunk in a private establishment http://www.dfw.com/mld/startelegram/news/state/14209752.htm
Afterall just like the smoking ban it is for our health, and who knows better than I how to keep myself healthy, than of course the government and the millions of complicit citizens who are overjoyed that they will no longer have to be exposed to cigarette smoke.

The next time the nannyist state oversteps its bounds and forces society to do things it is perfectly capable of making its own choices about, remember that you supported the smoking ban.



The only parallel to this and "assault weapons" is that you shouldn't be able to shoot weapons where there are people downrange. Anybody is free to smoke to their hearts content in the middle of nowhere - or even in their own house.

This is not tyranny of the majority. The extent to which this infringes on private property rights is most akin to civil rights legislation and the mandating of service to minorities. In the latter situation it was most obviously not "tyranny of the majority."

I'm not sure how Colorado's law is written, but most of them still allow private smoking clubs. The issue is, if you are going to set yourself up as a public establishment - and draw profits from the public use of your establishment, you have to heed to the smoking ban.

Nobody is advocating kicking in the doors of private establishments looking for smokers.

As for your link - again - public establishments, publically accountable law enforcement. Judging from the reported outcry, I'd recon the public itself will have this stupid lack of enforcement dicretion curtailed. MADD turned into a joke long ago - for me it was a 3 hour long seminar in Texas - back when there was debate about lowering the driving limit from .10 to .08 - and every example they used to show how bad drunk driving was featured domwe drunk who was .15 or higher. MADD is no longer about drunk driving, but an alcohol prohibition group in sheep's clothing.
Link Posted: 3/29/2006 1:10:12 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/29/2006 1:11:33 PM EDT by rtr]

This is not tyranny of the majority. The extent to which this infringes on private property rights is most akin to civil rights legislation and the mandating of service to minorities. In the latter situation it was most obviously not "tyranny of the majority."


It is absolutely tyranny of the majority, it is mandating with law that a certain activity that the majority does not like be made illegal in virtually every place of public accomodation, simply because the majority finds said activity annoying. All of this in a market where all patrons and business owners have a choice about whether or not this activity occurs, and there are places that cater to both smokers and non-smokers.

It has nothing to do with civil rights, during segregation blacks had NO CHOICE about where to go, they were treated as second class citizens everywhere. They had no choice about being black. Today you have a choice about whether or not you smoke, and you have a choice about whether to go into a smoking or non-smoking establishment.

The parallel of this to assault weapons, or anything else we may both enjoy is that there are probably a lot of people out there that think I shouldn't be able to own an assault weapon, just like there are a lot of people (including yourself) that don't think one should be able to smoke in public (although I'm a non-smoker). If this group gets big enough then just like they passed a smoking ban, they can pass an assault weapons ban (like in California, another state with a smoking ban). It's about principle, and this kind of legislation sets a bad precedent, gunowners should be smart enough to stop ANY legislation that interferes with basic rights, afterall the basic right that brings us together is under constant threat.
Link Posted: 3/29/2006 1:28:11 PM EDT
AWB in the city and county of Denver. Turned over by the Supreme Court, then Denver won an appeal. Still tied up in litigation, and still binding pending the outcome.

No Class 3 in Douglas County, sheriff won't sign.

City and county of Boulder is anti-gun.
Link Posted: 3/29/2006 1:38:48 PM EDT

City and county of Boulder is anti-gun.


Not arguing, because I'm not very familiar, but I do know the sheriff issues CCWs, and did before state law forced him to. What anti-gun things do the sheriff and/or other government do up there in the republic?
Link Posted: 3/29/2006 2:22:46 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/29/2006 2:23:37 PM EDT by Adam_White]

Originally Posted By rtr:

It is absolutely tyranny of the majority, it is mandating with law that a certain activity that the majority does not like be made illegal in virtually every place of public accomodation, simply because the majority finds said activity annoying. All of this in a market where all patrons and business owners have a choice about whether or not this activity occurs, and there are places that cater to both smokers and non-smokers.



The amount of "choice" we patrons have right now is a joke. The list you linked to is maybe one half of one percent at best - with ZERO locations here in Colorado Springs, a city of over 500,000.



It has nothing to do with civil rights, during segregation blacks had NO CHOICE about where to go, they were treated as second class citizens everywhere. They had no choice about being black. Today you have a choice about whether or not you smoke, and you have a choice about whether to go into a smoking or non-smoking establishment.



I didn't say it was a civil right issue, I used that as an example of another legal "attack" on the rights of property owner - and one that most people here would agree was a good idea. Back when that was debated, people made the same slippery slope argument about "rights" that you make today.

I can't walk into ONE bar or dance club anywhere in this town without being inundated with cigarette smoke. It is as much my right to enjoy a beer or shake my booty in public without my nose being attacked and my clothes coming out smelling like an ashtray as it is someone else's to smoke. They can still smoke, they just have to step outside to do so.



The parallel of this to assault weapons, or anything else we may both enjoy is that there are probably a lot of people out there that think I shouldn't be able to own an assault weapon, just like there are a lot of people (including yourself) that don't think one should be able to smoke in public (although I'm a non-smoker). If this group gets big enough then just like they passed a smoking ban, they can pass an assault weapons ban (like in California, another state with a smoking ban). It's about principle, and this kind of legislation sets a bad precedent, gunowners should be smart enough to stop ANY legislation that interferes with basic rights, afterall the basic right that brings us together is under constant threat.



You and I will have to agree to disagree. This legislation does not limit ownership in any way, nor does it say people can't smoke elsewhere. Any normal logic would have never made such a nasty habit legal in closed public spaces in the first place - it only was accepted due to tyranny of the majority "back in the day" when seemingly everyone smoked. IMHO, smoking is akin to urinating - it should not be legal to do it where someone else will have to "experience" your residue.

You mention California to further support your slippery slop argument, yet you fail to mention states like Florida and Missouri, who also have passed smoking bans but also allow concealed carry, Cl III, and "assault weapons." Your selective choice of states to compare Colorado to reflects your bias.

59bisquik: To keep this on topic - come to Colorado - we love our guns and have some of the world's largest "berms."
Link Posted: 3/30/2006 12:25:15 PM EDT
I think we need a new boulder reservoir IE build a wall around boulder and fill it with water
then we can fish for hippie scum.
Link Posted: 4/5/2006 7:32:23 AM EDT
I live in boulder, not by choice I'll mind you, and I shoot my AR proudly. I do love the looks people give when they see you with it, even at the range, and especially if someone sees you carrying it from your house to your car. Than being said, I have never been hasseled per say by anyone about my guns, but then again thats probably because not many people know i have them.
Link Posted: 4/5/2006 5:13:36 PM EDT

Originally Posted By rtr:

City and county of Boulder is anti-gun.


Not arguing, because I'm not very familiar, but I do know the sheriff issues CCWs, and did before state law forced him to. What anti-gun things do the sheriff and/or other government do up there in the republic?



Ever since state pre-emption there is nothing the republic CAN do about their dislike of firearms. They just have to swallow their pride and deal with it. The current sheriff signs on NFA. Boulder's reputation is apparently living, but the old legal framework is dead dead dead.
Link Posted: 4/6/2006 5:06:44 AM EDT
So you can live just down the road in Englewood, and be fine? When the hell did they pass thier own AW ban? Does that mean there are no sales of assault rifles in Denver, or that I can't bring my AR from Englewood into Denver? or both? When was this law passed by the way? Is there a grandfathering clause?

This is the same communist shit I was hoping to leave in California.. wtf?!?!?
Link Posted: 4/6/2006 8:35:55 AM EDT
The City and County of Denver has had an AWB for as long as I can remember. Don't believe for a minute that Colorado is anything like California. The laws here have alwys been good except for the few municipalities that decided to be more restrictive. Those municiple laws were wiped out 3-4 years ago when the state legislature (gun friendly, generally) took control of all firearms laws statewide, thus obliterating all other municiple and county laws.

The reason Denver can assert its own law is that Denver has a special "home rule" status granted to it in the Colorado Constitution. To understand how/why, you need to study the history of the Colorado Territory around 1876. Not worth your time.

Yes, you are OK to have your Evil Black Rifle in Englewood. Just don't take it to Denver, but feel free and uninhibited in the other 104,000 square miles of the state.
Link Posted: 4/6/2006 5:12:07 PM EDT
So any chance of that getting overturned or anything like that anytime soon? Oh well I'll just make it a point not to live in Denver, that's all. Kind of a let down though, I thought the whole state was clear. Thanks for the heads up...

On another note did they ever decide to get rid of emissions testing for vehicles yet?
Link Posted: 4/6/2006 9:04:07 PM EDT
I can't tell you what is going on with Denver's AWB and the challenge to the state statute. I have read that it has already been settled, and I don't know who prevailed, and I don't even watch it becasue I live in Free Colorado and honestly don't care what Denver does. Denver still has to comply with "shall issue" CCW which I'm sure makes them squirm. I have CCW and about the only time I pack is when I visit Denver.

Emissions testing is still here, but it is limited to cities along the Front Range. So it is not a requirement if you live far enough into the mountains.
www.aircarecolorado.com/outarea.htm
Link Posted: 4/11/2006 5:50:51 PM EDT
Moved from San Francisco 6 years ago. You won't be sorry.

Get out of California now.


Top Top