No, I Will Not “Shut My Pie Hole”!
There has been much discussion in the pro-gun community over the past two weeks about whether or not Colorado State Senate President Bill Cadman should offer a late bill to move the firearms magazine limit from 15 rounds to 30 rounds, while full repeal of the limitation is pursued in a future legislative session.
Senate President Bill Cadman has the ability to introduce this bill in the remaining days of the 2015 legislative session. Senator Cadman, please introduce this bill and give us as many options as possible in choosing our self-defense.
Reasonable people can disagree on this, and they are certainly doing so. There are good people on both sides of this argument.
I am on the side saying we should pursue the increase in magazine size this year, because that is all we can get this year. Based on the makeup of the current Colorado state legislature, there is no way to get a full repeal. That bill has been offered and killed twice — one was a Senate bill and one was a House bill.
The other side of the argument says that we should never put a limit on our constitutional rights, and accepting a 30 round limit is doing just that.
While I can get my head around that argument, I don’t agree with it. We already have a limit on our constitutional rights. I want to go in the right direction while we wait for a full repeal of limits. It took Ohio years to get a full repeal of their magazine limitation. Because they have a strong state gun rights organization, the Buckeye Firearms Association, they maintained a consistent focus and got the full repeal, while accepting every small victory they could achieve along the way.
Full repeal is the end game. An all or nothing strategy leaves us with nothing.
On April 17, 2015, Dudley Brown, head of the Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, called in to the Mandy Connell Show on KHOW, to speak out against a bill to move the magazine size limit from 15 to 30. He said, about people who want to buy a 30 round magazine to, “Shut your pie hole and go buy one. There are many retailers who sell them right now.” Brown also said that principled conservatives would not vote for such a bill. I disagree.
While there may be civil disobedience in buying illegal magazines and Sheriffs who say they are not complying with the law, that is not a plan. The Sheriffs’ tenure is not eternal, and someone who doesn’t see things the same way may replace them.
Set politics aside for a moment and consider the life of a woman today that has just filed a restraining order against a violent ex-husband. She may have never thought about owning a firearm before but now knows that she needs to be able to defend herself. She knows deep down that a restraining order is just a piece of paper, and if she wants to live, defending her own life will be her responsibility.
Today, that woman doesn’t have the choice to buy any firearm she wishes. She might not want a 30 round magazine, but she can’t have more than 15. There are many personal and home defense guns that come standard with a 16 or 17 round magazine. What if that was the one gun she felt most comfortable with? This woman should have options for the firearm she wants and by offering and passing this legislation now, she can have more choices this year. We can get this increase through the legislature while we work on full repeal.
So, no Dudley Brown, I will not “shut my pie hole” about this.
Brown has all the guns he needs. But he wants first time gun owners, including those women who need to defend themselves today, not to have the best choices they can. This is irresponsible, and real people can get hurt by not being able to have the best choices now. Again, an all or nothing strategy will give us nothing.
It’s not about politics. It’s about the life and safety of people who need to defend themselves today.
Join me in urging Senator Bill Cadman to offer this “late bill”.
If you are interested in a more extensive dialog on the topic, Jon Caldara from the Independence Institute hosted a marathon radio show on the topic.
Senator Bill Cadman can be reached @ (303) 866-4880
Please call and tell him to stand with the people or else we will take him out of office.
Dudley can take his football and go home if he must punish new gun owners. He and I may have all the firearms and magazines we want newbies however do not and their lives are worth saving too.
I agree. Dudley Brown and RMGO has done nothing but scare politicians by trying to “out” them and scare citizens in order to get money to pay his salary. He’s a complete fraud and his tactics remind me of Nazi propaganda and Comunist Russia.
I completely agree with Jon Caldara and Michael Brown. Dudley Brown is a self-serving nutcase who may be preying on well-meaning people and taking their money in what amounts to a scam. I’d like to see him investigated.
The obvious right choice is to mover the ball toward the goal line a few yards at at time. We’re wearing down the opposition. Walking away for redressing the 30-round issue is giving up and emboldening the left. It’s just stupid.
Dudley is a queer, nothing to with sexuality, he is just queer.
He is hurting us not helping.
During the last period of extremist Democratic anti-gun legislation in Colorado, Dudley was more interested in his “Zombie Shoots.”
I told him he was wrong and that he should stop the childish stuff and act as a professional in fighting the proposed legislation. Did he do it? Nope. Preferred to ack as a child while Rome burned. He kept a flow of Zombie Shoot info coming into my inbox.
Now with refusing to accept a push from 15 to 30 rounds in allowable magazines, he continues to act like a damn child.
Dudley has refused to remove my name from his wretched mailing list in spite of year of me asking.
Dudley is self absorbed and a self promoter. He is not a promoter of gun rights, he is a promoter of what he can reap in personal income from from his not gun owner friendly RMGO group.
Even most children can conceptualize the idea of a reduced period of a restriction as a positive – Dudley’s brain has not yet developed to the level of a child… He is a sad example of a human.
Dudley, take me of your RMGO mailing list, you suck!
Consider reporting Dudley to the Feds under the CAN SPAM Act. I’m sure Loretta Lynch would love to get her mitts on him.
I wholey agree with the thrust of the article. Take the raising of the limit if it can be achieved and repeal later when the legislature has a cleaner makeup (less Democrats).
Its not just a woman with a restraining order. Collectors who want to own certain firearms that only have larger magazines, ie a PMR30 is a .22 magnum pistol that only has a 30 round magazine. Someone who may be faced with large scale sivil disturbance (ie a riot) needs the largest reliable magazines they can afford – having lived in LA during the Rodney King riots I can assure you a 30 round magazine proturding from the bottom of a gun sent many rioters on their way without even having to fire a shot – it was evident the person had the ammunition on hand to deal with the several dozen in the crowd.
Statistics show that law enforcement has a miss rate of 75-80%, if citizens perform similiarly that means you have to fire 4-5 shots on average for a hit, and it often takes several hits to stop an attacker. Given that average a 15 round magazine is really only sufficient to stop 1-2 attackers – very frequntly there are more in these many gang attacks (ie the “knock out game”) that have happened in the last few years.
Dudley is giong to far in his bombastic approach, it may hurt RMGO this time around.
Laura, much as I love and respect you my friend, you are dead wrong this time.
The issue is simple: if you accept any limit on the size of magazines you implicitly agree with the right of the government to make a limit.
Then the only question is how many they will allow you to have. Sure, we may regain control and pass a full repeal. Then what? Do you think we’ll remain in control forever?
They will never give up. They will come back and they will have the precedent on their side that says the government has a right to limit the number of rounds you can have on your magazine.
Your mistake is in arguing from the effects instead of from principle.
The principle is simple and written into the Colorado constitution.
What is the proper remedy for an unconstitutional law? We’ve all been taught that the courts will strike it down. But today the courts don’t follow the rule of law.
So what choice is left to the people, in whose name the state government supposedly rules? Short of outright revolution, civil disobedience. There is no duty to obey an unconstitutional law.
What size magazine do you want? I’ll get it for you.
As I said, Al, reasonable people can disagree. That is what this debate is about.
Much as early abolitionists should have stuck to their guns rather than accepting incremental reductions in slavery while working toward full civil rights for blacks? No, sir, I disagree strongly. And so, by the way, does the enemy.
“But to the organizer, compromise is a key and beautiful word. It is always present in the pragmatics of operation. It is making the deal, getting that vital breather, usually the victory. If you start with nothing, demand 100 per cent, then compromise for 30 per cent, you’re 30 per cent ahead” Alinsky, Saul David “Rules for Radicals” 1971 New York, Random House.
Ah, but Kevin, wouldn’t Alinsky counsel his minions to go after whatever slice of the pie they can get, then come back for more, then come back for more, then come …
Good comments and discussion Laura. With the current legislature, we are NOT going to repeal any anti-gun legislation, but we might be able to make a change on the magazine size. Why not seize the opportunity and try for it? Dudley Brown is all about control and power…..for himself. If another group gets something positive done, this hurts his control over other legislators.
Re: “but she can’t have more than 15”
She probably legally can’t even have 15 and people (Dudley included) seem to be overlooking the main problem. If you read the law (CRS 18-12-301) it says in essence all magazines that hold more than 15 rounds or can be readily converted to hold more than 15 rounds must be in the continuous possession of the owner and are non-transferable to anyone. The law does not define “owner”, “continuous possession”, or “designed to be readily converted”. Hence any magazine holding less than 15 rounds that has a removable baseplate is designed to be converted since conversion kits exist for several of these magazines. Also it is noted to be legally compliant, the “owner” must never leave his dwelling without his grandfathered magazines, especially if he is married with a family or living with a significant other or roommates. The only reason people aren’t getting arrested is because the State Attorney General at the direction of the Governor has promulgated “technical guidance” that says not to enforce the strict interpretation of the law. But that doesn’t change the law nor does it preclude some anti-gun law enforcement officer and sympathetic DA from enforcing it if they choose to do so with or without the insistence of some anti-gun zealot who observes and records a violation. Nor does it prevent a current or future administration from rescinding the guidance and insisting on enforcement if they feel the time is right or the need arises “to keep the people safe”. So in essence it’s like a clandestine ton of bricks hanging over the heads of gunowners that could come crashing down at any time on the whim of a couple of politicians.
The concern RMGO has is that if the limit is raised to 30 rounds, gunowners will quit pressuring lawmakers. But with the Democrat’s gerrymandering of the districts, the influx of liberals from other states, and the Republican social agenda, I’m skeptical the Republicans will ever again gain full control the state government. For years as they’ve chipped away at our gun rights, the anti-gun progressives have known that in order to win the war, you first must win a battle so I say go for 30 rounds and keep fighting. The problem is going to be to find a state legislator who take the heat from their party by introducing a bill to raise the limit to 30 rounds and since the current session ends May 6th, it’s probably an issue for the next session in January.
RMGO is the ONLY group truly defending the 2nd amendment!
We should never put a limit on our constitutional rights!
A limit has already been put on those rights. Getting a bill extending the limit to 30 rounds submitted is a means of pushing that limit back *while we continue to fight for full repeal*.
Incrementalism has robbed us of our rights. The same tactic can be – and has been – used to reclaim them. Dudley is doing more harm than good, simply so he can have a windmill to tilt at while asking people for money.
I completely agree with Laura on this. I asked Sen Cadman (Jeff Crank Show, yesterday 4/26/2015) about GOP willingness to fight for our right to arms. Sen Cadman had just got through explaining that Roe vs. Wade made abortion rights settled law and I asked if the GOP was going to give up and accept gun control as settled law. His response was luke warm, at best.
Sen Cadman resolved to continue fighting for repeal of the recent gun control measures, call them the Bloomber-Morse-Merrifield laws, but couched his resolve in the distinction between settled law as Supreme Court ruling, on the one hand, and law as written by the Legislature on the other. Hey, law is law and as it stands, not only are we saddled with all those gun control laws, but the only one we seem to be contesting is this magazine limit ban. What about the others? What about the even more oppressive local bans, like in Denver, Bolder, and home rule communities?
I hope it hasn’t escaped your attention that having ousted Morse, we’ve seen gun control forces hoist Merrifield in his place!
I am an RMGO member – joined a long time ago before I really knew what Dudley was all about. I STRONGLY disagree with Dudley’s tactics on this! Any step forward is a good step forward. I’m sure there are other RMGO members who feel the same.
I really think Dudley should turn RMGO over to some individuals who truly care about Colorado gun owners.
[…] better than none; that it’s progress. Pro-gun rights activist Laura Carno is one of those. In a recent opinion piece, she argues for an incremental approach—taking what we can get now, going for a full repeal […]
I am a Colorado native and my family has been here since the silver rush in the 1870’s. Dudley Brown is a true defender of freedom and we truly appreciate RMGO actually fighting for the 2nd amendment. Keep up the great work Dudley!! Our founding fathers would be proud and there’s always hater when you’re #1 and in the arena!
What light is to the eyes- what air is to lungs- what love is to the heart-Liberty is to the soul of man!!!
The ironic thing is that Dudley Brown has once again found a way to get Republicans to eat their own, while the Democrats likely wouldn’t support any such extension, even if the Republicans put a bill together.
It’s certainly worth trying because 1. it establishes useful precedent to ultimately reclaim our full rights, and 2. it would give lie to the claim that Democrats in the legislature want any sort of “reasonable compromise,” no matter what they may say in off-the-cuff comments.
Also remember that, not only might sheriffs who *would* enforce these laws be elected in the future, there is no guarantee that legislators opposed to gun rights will stop in *their* incremental approach. What happens when “magazine repair kits” are explicitly made illegal and stores stop selling them rather than lose their business licenses? What happens when possession goes from a misdemeanor to a felony? Doing nothing may not keep the status quo, it may lose us more ground.
There is all profit to this late bill approach and very little risk, since we have already lost significant ground despite the “no compromise” rhetoric.
Well said Keith.
Hi, you might not like this comment about raw politics – but no one has discussed that Rep. Salazar? D, was reported to be working on this in a “bi-partisan way.” Why save his hide from another close election by making him a gun hero?
Repeal should be now, and in the courts!! Are you all suing? Principle is Principle!! Why accept any limit? Why don’t you all work to elect the right people?? Who else but Dudley has done more to advance that cause!
Next time, please include the guys out there who just filed a restraining order on their ex-wife and they want to defend themselves. There are some crazy women out there. Just say’n
Great point Mark. It happens less frequently in that direction but is no less important. Thanks for pointing it out!
Thanks for sharing!
This is the email I just sent to Dudley via RMGO…
I attended the 3gun freedom shoot today to raise money for RMGO. I was happy to do so.
While there, I heard some things that disturbed me, so I looked into it for myself.
It appears to me that your approach of all or nothing might be a little extreme. While I appreciate the idea that is behind it, it doesn’t seem to be working. Is it not possible to encourage moving the ban from 15 to 30 and then show all the nannies that,”See, nothing bad happened when we went from 15 to 30 so let’s go back to no ban at all.”?
I am concerned that my money is not being used to further the cause of the gun owner in Colorado. Please find another way to go about business or I will stop funding RMGO.