Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
For Colorado Governor, a Long Path to Gun Limits
Great article on how Hick was swayed -- and how we passed this stuff. Lots to learn here. 
(snip)
For weeks, aides said Mr. Hickenlooper was “examining” the proposal. He suggested he would support the bill, then hesitated.
But he had seen a study saying that 30 percent to 40 percent of slain police officers had been killed with high-capacity magazines. At a conference in Washington, he talked to government staff members from Arizona who described how Jared L. Loughner, the gunman in the mass shooting in Tucson in 2011, had been subdued as he changed clips. Eventually, and with reservations, Mr. Hickenlooper decided to support the 15-round limit.
“It seemed like in the end there might be more benefit than harm,” he said.
As the bills marched ahead, hundreds of outraged gun owners and dealers crammed the halls of the gilded Capitol to vent. Cars drove around the building, honking like angry geese in opposition to the measures.
An airplane even circled overhead, towing a banner that read, “Hick: Do Not Take Our Guns.”
But supporters say most Coloradans, even those who shoot skeet and store elk meat in their deep freezes, quietly support the new laws.
In December, a telephone survey of 905 Coloradans by Keating Research found that 80 percent agreed with expanded background checks and 61 percent supported magazine limits.
Read More:http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/19/us/gov-john-hickenlooper-of-colorado-is-poised-to-sign-tough-gun-laws.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
For weeks, aides said Mr. Hickenlooper was “examining” the proposal. He suggested he would support the bill, then hesitated.
But he had seen a study saying that 30 percent to 40 percent of slain police officers had been killed with high-capacity magazines. At a conference in Washington, he talked to government staff members from Arizona who described how Jared L. Loughner, the gunman in the mass shooting in Tucson in 2011, had been subdued as he changed clips. Eventually, and with reservations, Mr. Hickenlooper decided to support the 15-round limit.
“It seemed like in the end there might be more benefit than harm,” he said.
As the bills marched ahead, hundreds of outraged gun owners and dealers crammed the halls of the gilded Capitol to vent. Cars drove around the building, honking like angry geese in opposition to the measures.
An airplane even circled overhead, towing a banner that read, “Hick: Do Not Take Our Guns.”
But supporters say most Coloradans, even those who shoot skeet and store elk meat in their deep freezes, quietly support the new laws.
In December, a telephone survey of 905 Coloradans by Keating Research found that 80 percent agreed with expanded background checks and 61 percent supported magazine limits.
Read More:http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/19/us/gov-john-hickenlooper-of-colorado-is-poised-to-sign-tough-gun-laws.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
1 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
"But he had seen a study saying that 30 percent to 40 percent of slain police officers had been killed with high-capacity magazines."
That statistic alone should be enough to spur Congress to act on magazine/clip limits. My preference would be to see a 7-round limit on magazines for all civilian semi-automatic pistols - that's still one more shot than the average revolver, and if it is true, as our "pro gun progressives"* are constantly assuring us, that such a limit would "make no difference" then there should be no opposition to limiting them to that number from any quarter. After all, why oppose something that's going to make "no difference"?
The answer: it will make a difference, which is why the NRA shills & sycophants oppose it so loudly.
In any event, I doubt we could ever get seven but a lot of us would settle for a ten round limit along the lines of the 1994 law. As it looks like both magazine limits and a new AWB has stalled in the Senate this session, it's looking like it will depend on the next session of Congress to get this necessary work done.
That statistic alone should be enough to spur Congress to act on magazine/clip limits. My preference would be to see a 7-round limit on magazines for all civilian semi-automatic pistols - that's still one more shot than the average revolver, and if it is true, as our "pro gun progressives"* are constantly assuring us, that such a limit would "make no difference" then there should be no opposition to limiting them to that number from any quarter. After all, why oppose something that's going to make "no difference"?
The answer: it will make a difference, which is why the NRA shills & sycophants oppose it so loudly.
In any event, I doubt we could ever get seven but a lot of us would settle for a ten round limit along the lines of the 1994 law. As it looks like both magazine limits and a new AWB has stalled in the Senate this session, it's looking like it will depend on the next session of Congress to get this necessary work done.