quote:

Originally posted by drummondlindsey:

quote:

Originally posted by don444:

quote:

Originally posted by Die Ou Jagter:
It amazes me how any one supporting the second ammendment could ever vote Democrate.

Lets take this a step farther, I dont know how anybody that supports the second amendment could boycott people that not only support the second amendment but are in the middle of a battle to uphold our rights under the second amendment

I guess I was raised differently that Die Ou Jagter, I choose not to turn my back on men and women that are fighting for their right to bear arms and fighting for their freedoms that are guaranteed them under the Constitution of the United States of America.

Die, thanks for making it known that you cannot be counted on to fight when the time comes. Don't worry Die, others that are more patriotic than you will answer the call

There are plenty of Democrats that have A+ ratings from the NRA.

drummond, what have you done to fight the interlopers in your state. I only ask out of curosity. AAW I checked and it is 10% of the US Senators have an A rating and judgeing by my own state I would question them as they rate Casey with an A. I just read after the Conn shooting he has swung his potion 180 degrees. Like most politicians he goes with the wind.

quote:

Originally posted by AnotherAZWriter:

quote:

Originally posted by drummondlindsey:

quote:

Originally posted by don444:

quote:

Originally posted by Die Ou Jagter:
It amazes me how any one supporting the second ammendment could ever vote Democrate.

Lets take this a step farther, I dont know how anybody that supports the second amendment could boycott people that not only support the second amendment but are in the middle of a battle to uphold our rights under the second amendment

I guess I was raised differently that Die Ou Jagter, I choose not to turn my back on men and women that are fighting for their right to bear arms and fighting for their freedoms that are guaranteed them under the Constitution of the United States of America.

Die, thanks for making it known that you cannot be counted on to fight when the time comes. Don't worry Die, others that are more patriotic than you will answer the call

There are plenty of Democrats that have A+ ratings from the NRA.

That's correct. Harry Reid for one. Howard Dean for another. Hard to believe but true.

Forget the hunting boycott. Encourage a tourism boycott. Hunting, supports hunting, tourism is all walks. I think the gays threatened one against kolorado years ago, and it got a lot of attention. But if every gun owner and their friends and family opted for another vacation destination, it might have an affect on the liberal businessman.

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:
Rifles have to be a minimum of .24 caliber. You never saw that?

If you don't want to believe me, check out page 12 of the 2013 Colorado Big Game Brochure.

These restrictions have been in effect since at least 1992 when I first hunted Colorado.

Since I cannot figure out how to copy and paste from the Colorado DOW site, I will copy them verbatim from the brochure. Since you doubt the veracity of my statement you can check it out on the Colorado DOW website.

Directly from the 2013 Big Game Brochure, on page 12, left hand side of page, top of page, listed under Legal Hunting Methods - CENTERFIRE RIFLES!

A. Must Be A Minimum Of .24 Caliber (6mm).

B. Must Have A Minimum 16-inch Barrel And Be At Least 26 Inches Long.

C. If Semiautomatic, A Maximum Of Six (6) Rounds Are Allowed In The Magazine And Chamber Combined.

D. Must Use Expanding Bullets That Weigh Minimum Of 70 Grains For Deer, Pronghorn And Bear, 85 Grains For Elk And Moose, And Have An Impact Energy (At 100 Yards) Of 1000 - Ft. Pounds As Rated By The Manufacturer.

E. It Is Illegal To Hunt Game Birds, Small Game Mammals Or Furbearers With A Centerfire Rifle Larger Than .23 Caliber During Regular Deer And Elk Seasons West Of I-25, Without An Unfilled Deer Or Elk License For The Season. A Small Game, Furbearer Or Unfilled Big-Game License Is Required.

The above is directly from the 2013 Big Game Brochure on Page 12 or can be viewed on the DOW website. To the best of my memory these regulations have been in place since 1992.

Go argue with Colorado DOW!

I suppose we can argue semantics but those don't really seem like RESTRICTIONS to me. At least, not in terms of being unusual or contrary to how I would hunt anyway.

I know it's the "cool" thing now days to shoot whitetails with .22 caliber rifles and with bullets such as the Barnes TSX, it is probably a bit more ethical than in the past, but personally, I'd never hunt any sort of big game animal with less than a 243Win. Texas has a restriction stating that big game animals cannot be legally taken with rimfire rifles. Is that a "restriction"? Seems like it.

What is the federally mandated limit on short barreled rifles? It's 16 inches isn't it? To possess a "short barreled rifle" one needs the Class 3 Tax Stamp don't they? I don't see that as being a Colorado specific issue.

I suppose the 6 round in the magazine restriction could be an issue. Seems as though this would tie in a bit with the 223 or AR type weapon. But do note, as your wrote it, it doesn't state a 5 round magazine with another in the chamber. It states that you can only put a total of 6 rounds in the rifle, not that the magazine itself is restricted to only being able to hold 5 rounds. Texas has restrictions on the number of shotgun rounds you can hunt migratory game birds with. Again, I just don't see this as being a "restriction" that stands in stark contrast to other states or generally accepted practices.

There are also restrictions in Texas concerning the use of centerfire rifles during spring turkey seasons. It is required to posses a hunting license for all game animals and fur bearing animals with the exception that depredating hogs and coyotes can be hunted without a license, and fur bearing animals can be hunted with only a trappers license.

Point being that each state has it's own regulations but you insinuated that Colorado had unusual firearms restrictions necessary for hunting in the state. I suggest that the Colorado regulations regarding big game hunting do not stand in contrast to other states, Texas included. Sure, there are some minor differences, but nothing draconian as you implied.

Now, go argue with yourself!

Give it a rest will ya! Those certainly are restrictions on what can and can't be used and you wouldn't have said squat if anyone other than CHC had made that post!

quote:

Now, go argue with yourself!

Colorado's old restrictions that Crazy posted are normal and reasonable and are very similar to most Western states. Some Similar to what we have here in Texas. I think we have a .22 cal centerfire minimum, so CO has a .24 Cal min. Seems reasonable to me. Not really restrictive when compared to all the other states.

Texas probably has the most relaxed regulations, and we still have a pretty solid structure of regs to follow. But, we are 99% private land too. That comes into play when setting game laws.

Sorry, but I just don't see those Colorado regulations as being restrictive at all. And yes, I would have responded to anyone who had posted them as such!

Point being that in regards to Colorado and it's gun laws, both old and new, there doesn't seem to be anything particular to the state that is unusual or significantly MORE restrictive than other states. Maybe some minor differences but nothing of note.

Certainly the short barreled rifle restriction is a federal one, not limited to Colorado. When CHC commented on "Colorado's Firearms Restrictions" I thought maybe something had changed since I last hunted there. Specifically, I am booked to hunt Colorado this fall for Mule Deer with Aaron Neilson. If there is something new, I need to know of it.

As I said, we can argue semantics, but to me, a firearm restriction and a hunting regulation are two different things entirely. For instance, many African countries require a .375 or larger to hunt dangerous game. I don't consider that to be a firearm restriction as much as a hunting regulation in the same vein as legal shooting hours and dates when a particular season opens or closes.

A restriction is more like RSA's ban against possessing more than one firearm in the same caliber. Or that in order to temporarily import a firearm for sport hunting, one must possess an invitation letter from the outfitter, have duplicate notarized copies of the US Customs form 4457 showing ownership of the firearm, filled out the SAPS TIP form, and so on.

I know of no restrictions such as these in the state of Colorado that would prevent me from bringing in the type of firearm I would normally use for hunting. There are no regulatory hoops to jump through inorder to bring a big game rifle into the state.

Again, maybe semantics, but I just don't see that Colorado has, or maybe I should say, had any unreasonable firearm restrictions in place concerning big game hunting rifles or shotguns.

From the Merriam-Webster On-Line Dictionary!

Definition of RESTRICTION

1: something that restricts: as

a : a regulation that restricts or restrains <restrictions for hunters>


Definition of REGULATION

1: the act of regulating : the state of being regulated

a : an authoritative rule dealing with details or procedure <safety regulations>

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:
From the Merriam-Webster On-Line Dictionary!

Definition of RESTRICTION

1: something that restricts: as

a : a regulation that restricts or restrains <restrictions for hunters>


Definition of REGULATION

1: the act of regulating : the state of being regulated

a : an authoritative rule dealing with details or procedure <safety regulations>

Yep, I'd say that is about spot on considering the way I explained my position. Thank you for making my point!

Have a nice day now!

quote:

Yep, I'd say that is about spot on considering the way I explained my position. Have a nice day now!

Obviously you won't admit it, but now you have made posts saying the things CHC posted aren't too "RESTRICTIVE", which is contrary and a far cry from your original description. You may not consider them too restrictive, but just with that comment alone you have, therefore, stated they are exactly what CHC stated. PS: I see you edited and added a little ditty at the end, which appears as you're trying to rub it in a little and maybe doing a little baiting .

Topgun,

There are no unusual "firearms restrictions" against bringing in typical hunting arms to the state of Colorado for the purposes of hunting. Fact!

Regarding the latter part of your post, it's very easy for you or anyone else to omit a portion of a post you have copied, as you did with mine. Want an example? Here you go:

quote:

Obviously you won't admit it, but now you have made posts saying the things CHC posted aren't too "RESTRICTIVE", which is contrary and a far cry from your original description. You may not consider them too restrictive, but just with that comment alone you have, therefore, stated they are exactly what CHC stated. PS: I see you edited and added a little ditty at the end, which appears as you're trying to rub it in a little and maybe doing a little baiting

Compared to:

quote:

Obviously you won't admit it, but now you have made posts saying the things CHC posted aren't too "RESTRICTIVE", which is contrary and a far cry from your original description. PS: I see you edited and added a little ditty at the end, which appears as you're trying to rub it in a little and maybe doing a little baiting

Or Compared to:

quote:

PS: I see you edited and added a little ditty at the end, which appears as you're trying to rub it in a little and maybe doing a little baiting

See the difference? So who is baiting who? You have a nice day as well. This is simply ridiculous!

Wow, Arron, I give you a lot of credit for being so bold in your letter. Some may think its stupid but I think its ballsy. You’re probably on a Gov watch list at this point so you may want to bury a couple of guns. Lol. Our government has been hijacked and all our freedoms are being challenged now along with the moral decay of the UN-united States and our leaders in their own network. I’m very concerned for the “near” future. I read a post somewhere that the individual will not vote for neither Dem or Republican because they only fight each other anyway and only we the people suffer and maybe the only way to gain back some piece of the Country that is still salvageable is Vote for any other party but those two parties. But like you said in a shade of color we have been much too civilized up till this point and perhaps now is a good time to let them fight for the America that belongs to us.

This country is increasingly becoming two countries, based on whether states are going by the Constitution as it was written, or subject to socialist interpretation.

It is why I packed up, bag and baggage, in 1978 and moved to Idaho. We have a saying here, "Idaho IS what America WAS!".

We would welcome you and yours to Idaho, which is, like Montana, and to a lesser (perhaps just quieter) extent, Wyoming.

Our state Government stands ready and willing, perhaps anxious to challenge any attempts to subvert our liberties.

God Bless you man...

Rich

I've lived here in Colorado my whole life, but I'd pack up and leave now if my wife would come with.
I don't see this gun legislation having much impact on hunting and traditional hunting rifles.
But the problem is, THIS ISN'T ABOUT HUNTING, AND NEITHER IS THE 2ND AMENDMENT!
When we piss around arguing about hunting and hunting guns we are missing the important issue here that our rights are being stripped away in small bites. We can't dick around bitching amongst ourselves while the ship is sinking. I believe the gun rights issues are indicators of the danger to our freedoms and indeed our national security. The liberals and the current administration are willing to ignore, twist, change and walk all over the constitution to what ever extent the people will stand by and let it happen. Remember the UN small arms treaty? Obullshit stated just a couple weeks after re-election that "we" are going to revisit this. (my paraphrasing). You all going to stand by and let the UN take your guns because traitors in the federal government gave away our sovereignty when no one was looking? Bullsnot! It may become necessary to take a stand and back it with action, not talk.

quote:

Originally posted by cobrad:
... The liberals and the current administration are willing to ignore, twist, change and walk all over the constitution to what ever extent the people will stand by and let it happen.

Exactly, they will push it to the limits until the people push back.

quote:

Originally posted by cobrad:
Remember the UN small arms treaty? Obullshit stated just a couple weeks after re-election that "we" are going to revisit this. (my paraphrasing).

Actually, on Wednesday morning, very first thing after he won reelection the night before, he stated he supported it. Not trying to split hairs, but think about that! On Tuesday, he had no desire to address gun control, no desire to support any legislation on guns, including the UN treaty, on Wednesday morning, he was all about it.

Think he changed his mind overnight? Yeah, me either.

Any time a Politician says they surpport the 2nd but then says BUT.

They really do not.

After all the hyperbole and pissing contests, the situation has come back full circle.

The fact is all of us that support the Second Amendment, we do not all support it to the same extent, and unfortunately for American gun owners, that is where we will end up having our right to own any firearm taken from us.

There are and always will be a certain percentage of individuals that will be or are willing to see some guns be banned if they believed it would allow them to hang on to their firearms for a little while longer.

Chc a good self description of you.

quote:

Originally posted by Die Ou Jagter:
drummond, what have you done to fight the interlopers in your state. I only ask out of curosity.

Ed, my neighbor is very involved in our local politics and with her local leadership we spend many hours going door to door during election time. She obtains a list of voters and we go door to door on the undecided voters and gauge where they stand. We break down our area and we devote all of our time to the "swing vote" and we get updated info on whether they have voted or not. The people that we feel will vote republican will get called for reminders and those that we feel will vote democrat won't. It may not sound like much but it helps! The town and county where I reside (Windsor and Weld) are both conservative. We put the effort in because we want to keep it that way. I honestly believe that it makes a difference and I will continue to volunteer my time to fight for all of our rights as Americans. If more people would get out I believe we can take this state back.

I will continue to fight Ed, I will not give up. I will also never turn my back on people that find themselves fighting the same battle. It's not that I'm against boycotts, I am just against boycotts that hurt individuals that believe the same things that I do about our country, our freedom and our constitution. Boycotts need to be strategic in nature to be most effective. A blanket boycott of the entire state will do more harm than good

What does a blanket boycott achieve when gun control comes to your state or is passed for the entire country? We can't just boycott America, we have to bit these liberal assholes where it hurts them, not us

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:
Rifles have to be a minimum of .24 caliber. You never saw that?

If you don't want to believe me, check out page 12 of the 2013 Colorado Big Game Brochure.

These restrictions have been in effect since at least 1992 when I first hunted Colorado.

Since I cannot figure out how to copy and paste from the Colorado DOW site, I will copy them verbatim from the brochure. Since you doubt the veracity of my statement you can check it out on the Colorado DOW website.

Directly from the 2013 Big Game Brochure, on page 12, left hand side of page, top of page, listed under Legal Hunting Methods - CENTERFIRE RIFLES!

A. Must Be A Minimum Of .24 Caliber (6mm).

B. Must Have A Minimum 16-inch Barrel And Be At Least 26 Inches Long.

C. If Semiautomatic, A Maximum Of Six (6) Rounds Are Allowed In The Magazine And Chamber Combined.

D. Must Use Expanding Bullets That Weigh Minimum Of 70 Grains For Deer, Pronghorn And Bear, 85 Grains For Elk And Moose, And Have An Impact Energy (At 100 Yards) Of 1000 - Ft. Pounds As Rated By The Manufacturer.

E. It Is Illegal To Hunt Game Birds, Small Game Mammals Or Furbearers With A Centerfire Rifle Larger Than .23 Caliber During Regular Deer And Elk Seasons West Of I-25, Without An Unfilled Deer Or Elk License For The Season. A Small Game, Furbearer Or Unfilled Big-Game License Is Required.

The above is directly from the 2013 Big Game Brochure on Page 12 or can be viewed on the DOW website. To the best of my memory these regulations have been in place since 1992.

Go argue with Colorado DOW!

It's interesting with all the posts telling me my 270 will bounce off of elk, that we are concerned with not being able to use something less than a 243 ...

I hate the new gun laws, but as CHC says most (but not all) states have some kind of caliber requirements for big game hunting and have for a long long time

Todd Williams---That was a sorry ass response to me and a damn lie the way you made those quotes up. You know damn well what I meant and that is that you ADDED to that quote of yours "AFTER" I had put it up and that's why I put my actual comment back to you as a PS so it could be seen as that. You're a sneaky SOB to then put mine up and actually DELETE part of out to try and say I did that to you! It takes a lowly SOB to do that when this isn't even a life or death situation!!! However, it shows that someone that would do that can't be trusted!!! The point is that you won't admit you're wrong and will go to great attempts, including lying/cheating to try and win an argument. That's a big problem with this website when you can go in and change a post at any time to add or delete something and the site does not show it in any manner. You knew that and used it deceptively---shame on you!!! CHC merely said Colorado had restrictions and when asked what they were he posted them. He, nor anyone else in this thread, has stated they were more restrictive than other places and it was YOU that first came up with the term "RESTRICTIVE" in an attempt to change the context of what CHC posted. THAT IS also what is ridiculous and pretty sad. Then you had to start mixing in YOUR ideas of what a regulation or restriction is and that is only YOUR perspective! Whether you want to call them a regulation or restriction is completely irrelevant because they are both used to tell someone what they can or can't do or use in any particular circumstance. Get caught violating either one and see what happens!

Topgun,

This really is beyond silly at this point for grown men to argue over something so minor. Therefore this will be my last response on this thread. But that last comment of yours deserves a response.

My post was not edited later as you state. In point of fact however, the evidence shows that YOUR post WAS edited after initial submission by going back and putting in a PS as evidently you desired to engage in this silliness further. You simply accused me of doing exactly what you did. Sorry, but that isn't my style. There are plenty of my posts contained on this forum for anyone to review regarding my character. I'll further submit that I'll gladly stand on the reputation I've built on this forum. I'm not so sure you can honestly say the same.

I certainly do not always agree with others. That is the nature of a discussion forum. I'll state my opinions just as others have the absolute right to do the same. Unless personal attacks arise, as you have now opened with your last post, I try to keep the discussions confined to accurate statements about the topic at hand. Go back and read the question I posed to CHC regarding his statement that "Colorado has had firearms restrictions for hunting Big Game for as long as I can remember and I first hunted there in 1992". I simply asked what restrictions he was talking about. I do not think that question was phrased in a confrontational manner, yet true to his form, he certainly responded that way by signing off with "Go argue with Colorado DOW!"

In my response, I also offered a bit of space to avoid further confrontation by stating "I suppose we can argue semantics". Specifically, that means while some may see CO's regulations as a "firearms restriction", I don't. If you do, you do. You don't have to agree with me. Again, semantics. IMO a regulation addresses how hunting must be conducted and with what equipment. A "firearms restriction" requires special, additional, or unusual regulatory compliance by the hunter inorder to POSSESS his weapon of choice. The short barreled rifle item CHC stated is a good example. That is a genuine firearm restriction requiring special paperwork and a special background check inorder to possess that particular weapon. But, it is not a Colorado restriction, rather a federal restriction, so back to CHC's post, it isn't a firearms restriction that only has to be complied with when hunting Colorado! I suppose to really narrow the topic and put a fine point on it, should one go through the necessary steps to legally purchase and posses a short barreled rifle, Colorado has restricted you from hunting with it in their state. So, from that standpoint, it would be Colorado specific. It's a stretch by any account however.

Earlier in the thread where CHC and I interacted, I stated that it would be nice to keep discussions to ideas and not to continually have to explain that every single response to his statements are not intended as personal insults and that he should not get offended so quickly. It appears that you may benefit from that same advise.

To the topic of this thread. As I stated earlier, I understand the initial reaction to wanting to boycott Colorado in response to these new Anti-Gun and Anti-Constitutional laws. I took the very same position at first. But, I realize that doing so would simply punish the people of the state who are engaged in fighting these leftist political moves. They had nothing to do with it, to the contrary. If and when the same comes to Texas where I live, I'll be actively engaged in fighting it, even if it passes into law. I'd gladly accept any help from outside the state in putting things right against the liberals. Furthermore, my opinion is that a boycott of hunting in Colorado, or for that matter, any other state where liberals have gained power, is exactly what they want. Most liberals who support gun control also support "animal rights" and fall squarely into the "anti-hunter" category. Therefore, I don't see how a boycott does anything the liberals would consider as being counter to their desires. Lastly, spending money with the very people most likely to fight the anti's in their own state seems to be money well spent IMO. They may ultimately fail to stop the march to collectivism, but I'll be glad to help them go down fighting.

Bullshit!!! Your post WAS exactly as it was when I hit the quote button and put it in my post. When I got done and put mine on the forum you had gone back and added that sentence about CHC making your point. Then I hit the edit icon for my post and put in my PS sentence. You're memory is either as short as your dick or you're a fu**ing liar!!! Let's hope it's the former of the two! I also told you right up front I went back and what I did and now you're trying to say that proves I'm wrong about this, LOL!!! Now as far as the reputation YOU think you have gained, go pound sand and continue to lie!!! As far as the rest of your lengthy post, you didn't need to respond at all, but started up using the word restrictive and trying to win the debate when it was not necessary because CHC hadn't said anything other than CO had restrictions. Then some smartass had to jump in and call him out on it. Geez, I think it was the guy with the fantastic reputation, LOL!!! All those restrictions CO has that were posted are right in the hunting regulations just like any other other state and you damn well know it. Here's another nice little ditty you put out to CHC. Was it to enhance your great reputation here on the Forums? "Crazy, what is the old saying? Small minds speak of people, average minds speak of events, great minds speak of ideas. Can we at least speak of events and ideas without making each and every discussion about you personally? Frankly, constantly having to address how your perceive every single post in terms of how bad you are personally insulted is quite boring and it never advances the discussion."
DRSS
NRA Life
NAHC Life
SCI
DSCPS

***Sorry guys, but even on a Good Friday a liar is a liar and I hate liars no matter what day it is!!! Hopefully, he won't come back with any more BS, as I'll have none of it!

Edited at 4:32PM Eastern on 3/29/13 for spelling!

As we roll into Easter, I want to thank our posters for reinforcing my decision to only hunt with my dogs.

quote:

Originally posted by Navaluk:
As we roll into Easter, I want to thank our posters for reinforcing my decision to only hunt with my dogs.

+1

State grants Secret Service vast new powers (Colorado)


Friday, March 29, 2013 10:45:49 PM · by Red Steel · 72 replies
wnd ^ | March 29, 2013 3 hours ago | Jack Minor

Soon will be able to enforce Obama gun laws without sheriffs' help A bill is heading to Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper’s desk that Republican lawmakers say would give members of the Secret Service broad arrest powers in the state and could provide a framework for federal agents eventually to enforce gun restrictions. “This is absolutely insane,” Rep. Lori Saine, R-Dacono, said. “In theory if a Secret Service agent is in a county where the sheriff has refused to enforce some of the recent unenforceable gun laws, the agent could arrest an individual if he believes the law has been broken

Here's what they think of it in CO - http://www.city-data.com/forum...ontrol-measures.html

Most don't like it any better than we do. But then, you've got some who can't get rid of all guns fast enough.

They've now heard about the boycott too.

If you read it, be sure to "rep" some that are on our side. You can do that on certain other boards.

I read a number of the comments on that link. Sounds like Colorado alright. Lots of liberal BS from folks who can't give away their freedom fast enough. This latest development involving the secret service is chilling. It is like watching the development of Big Brother as Orwell laid it out. The crazy part is there are a Lot of people here who can't wait to make this happen. It feels like the same kind of mass insanity that allows things like mob violence and even genocide to happen. People divest themselves of their own ability to reason and follow the leader because it feels safe, it seems acceptable. Wasn't it Patrick Henry who said "give me freedom or give me death"? Is this beginning to look like the modern version of events that led to that famous statement? I think so.

quote:

Originally posted by cobrad:
involving the secret service is chilling. It is like watching the development of Big Brother as Orwell laid it out.

Orwell had it right, he just missed the date by about 30 years.

quote:

Originally posted by graybird:
The major issue is that liberals have been pouring into this state by the thousands every year from states like California and Florida and bringing their liberal views. They live basically in the Denver metro complex thru Boulder into Estes Park, and there is so many of them, they basically control the state.

You said a mouthful there! That is EXACTLY right. Essentially outsiders bringing the same ideals, mores, and nonsense with them from where they came. They need to leave their liberal garbage behind and accept the people and their ways for what they are.

Missouri is nuts

If you have some cash walmart will sell anyone with a hunter I D a deer tag....

As many doe tags as you want.....up to 99 per purchase

Any centerire.....yes any.....25 ACP anybody?

Nuts

quote:

Originally posted by Kenati:

quote:

Originally posted by graybird:
The major issue is that liberals have been pouring into this state by the thousands every year from states like California and Florida and bringing their liberal views. They live basically in the Denver metro complex thru Boulder into Estes Park, and there is so many of them, they basically control the state.

You said a mouthful there! That is EXACTLY right. Essentially outsiders bringing the same ideals, mores, and nonsense with them from where they came. They need to leave their liberal garbage behind and accept the people and their ways for what they are.

You guys are right. Libs move to a state, vote in more libs, pass liberal laws, screw up the economy and business climate in their own state, complain about it, move to a state with a "more friendly" business climate, then screw it up too. Texas is barely "red" now. Only by a hand-full of points.

People moving from Orange CO, CA to Texas vs TX to Orange county was something like 16:1 a few years ago.

Colorado first, TX next.

Orange Co bsically RED.

Colorado Shooting Competition Canceled In Wake Of New Gun Control Laws
Ammo Land ^ | Apr. 1, 2013 | AmmoLand Staff



GRAND JUNCTION, Colo. –-(Ammoland.com)- Organizers of the Rocky Mountain Western States Regional IDPA Championship, initially scheduled to take place July 4-6 2013 in Montrose, Colorado, have announced that the match is being canceled in the wake of Colorado’s recently passed gun control laws.

An estimated 300-plus shooters from the neighboring states and across the country were expected to attend the three-day competitive shooting event. This is the second shooting competition to abandon the state after a recent announcement by firearms maker Ruger that it was moving the 2013 Ruger Rimfire Challenge World Championship out of Colorado.

“With these new Colorado laws going into effect July 1, and based on the ambiguous way in which they were written, we have decided to cancel the Rocky Mountain Western States Regional IDPA Championship,” said event organizer Walt Proulx of Grand Junction.

“Due to the growing number of hunters and shooters choosing to boycott Colorado, and the risk that these laws as written will turn law-abiding citizens into criminals, we were left with no other choice but to cancel what was planned to be one of IDPA’s major regional championships, and one strongly supported by Montrose-area businesses.”

Cancellation of the Rocky Mountain Western States Regional adds to the negative economic impact resulting from the passage of Colorado’s recent gun control legislation. Already, Colorado-based firearms accessories manufacturer Magpul Industries Corp. has announced its intention to leave the state, and Michael Bane, an independent producer for the Outdoor Channel, has said he will cease production of four of the channel’s popular shooting programs in Colorado.


(Excerpt) Read more at ammoland.com ...

There seems to be some commonality between both our state and national liberal agenda; go forward with unconstitutional gun law in spite of the will of the people.
Seems the same with the economy. Obullshit and the rest of his pack seemed bent on destroying the economy in pursuit of an ideological agenda, in spite of obvious indicators that their course is unsustainable.
Likewise in Colorado. I don't think the liberal care about the economic consequences so much as achieving gun control.
There is nothing to do but vote these dumb $hits out.
It's one thing to be a dumb $hit, but quite another to try bulldoze the constitution.
We must fight this by every means available, and Vote Them Out in the mid-terms.

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:
Rifles have to be a minimum of .24 caliber. You never saw that?

If you don't want to believe me, check out page 12 of the 2013 Colorado Big Game Brochure.

These restrictions have been in effect since at least 1992 when I first hunted Colorado.

Since I cannot figure out how to copy and paste from the Colorado DOW site, I will copy them verbatim from the brochure. Since you doubt the veracity of my statement you can check it out on the Colorado DOW website.

Directly from the 2013 Big Game Brochure, on page 12, left hand side of page, top of page, listed under Legal Hunting Methods - CENTERFIRE RIFLES!

A. Must Be A Minimum Of .24 Caliber (6mm).

B. Must Have A Minimum 16-inch Barrel And Be At Least 26 Inches Long.

C. If Semiautomatic, A Maximum Of Six (6) Rounds Are Allowed In The Magazine And Chamber Combined.

D. Must Use Expanding Bullets That Weigh Minimum Of 70 Grains For Deer, Pronghorn And Bear, 85 Grains For Elk And Moose, And Have An Impact Energy (At 100 Yards) Of 1000 - Ft. Pounds As Rated By The Manufacturer.

E. It Is Illegal To Hunt Game Birds, Small Game Mammals Or Furbearers With A Centerfire Rifle Larger Than .23 Caliber During Regular Deer And Elk Seasons West Of I-25, Without An Unfilled Deer Or Elk License For The Season. A Small Game, Furbearer Or Unfilled Big-Game License Is Required.

The above is directly from the 2013 Big Game Brochure on Page 12 or can be viewed on the DOW website. To the best of my memory these regulations have been in place since 1992.

Go argue with Colorado DOW!

I suppose we can argue semantics but those don't really seem like RESTRICTIONS to me. At least, not in terms of being unusual or contrary to how I would hunt anyway.

I know it's the "cool" thing now days to shoot whitetails with .22 caliber rifles and with bullets such as the Barnes TSX, it is probably a bit more ethical than in the past, but personally, I'd never hunt any sort of big game animal with less than a 243Win. Texas has a restriction stating that big game animals cannot be legally taken with rimfire rifles. Is that a "restriction"? Seems like it.

What is the federally mandated limit on short barreled rifles? It's 16 inches isn't it? To possess a "short barreled rifle" one needs the Class 3 Tax Stamp don't they? I don't see that as being a Colorado specific issue.

I suppose the 6 round in the magazine restriction could be an issue. Seems as though this would tie in a bit with the 223 or AR type weapon. But do note, as your wrote it, it doesn't state a 5 round magazine with another in the chamber. It states that you can only put a total of 6 rounds in the rifle, not that the magazine itself is restricted to only being able to hold 5 rounds. Texas has restrictions on the number of shotgun rounds you can hunt migratory game birds with. Again, I just don't see this as being a "restriction" that stands in stark contrast to other states or generally accepted practices.

There are also restrictions in Texas concerning the use of centerfire rifles during spring turkey seasons. It is required to posses a hunting license for all game animals and fur bearing animals with the exception that depredating hogs and coyotes can be hunted without a license, and fur bearing animals can be hunted with only a trappers license.

Point being that each state has it's own regulations but you insinuated that Colorado had unusual firearms restrictions necessary for hunting in the state. I suggest that the Colorado regulations regarding big game hunting do not stand in contrast to other states, Texas included. Sure, there are some minor differences, but nothing draconian as you implied.

Now, go argue with yourself!

It's not just COOL today

quote:

Originally posted by MC:
I shot my first 2 mule deer with a 222. My wife shot her first mule deer with a 223. My father always hunted deer with a 22-250. Premium bullets and shot placement are a must. But then I live by the saying that a gut-shot deer with a 300 Mag is a gut shot deer. I shoot a 280 on everything from mulies to moose now. I would probably stick with a 243, but that 22-250 will kill deer slicker than slick. Flame away and throw me under the bus.

I must agree with MC. About twenty years ago I hunted with several guys who were a few years older than I was and pretty much used 300Mags and 338Mags for everything, because bigger is better. There were actually two groups of guys, with a couple common members between them and we switched off groups based on vacations, draws, etc. One of the oldest guys had long given up on the boomers for deer because he said his arthritic shoulder couldn’t tolerate the recoil any longer. He still used an old Model 70 30-’06 for elk because it worked well and he’d had it since new.

Several years before the older guy had started regularly using a 22-250 with Nosler 60g Partitions on deer. He said it was a bit loud, but the recoil was a little less than his ’06 and it could really reach out there. He always said it killed deer like the hammer of God. The guys all gave him crap for using a prairie dog gun on deer.

Because of screwed up work vacation schedules one year, he and one other guy ended up not getting time off during the regular hunt we did, so they decided to tough it out together on the coast side. The other guy was a .338 fan and this was all he hunted with for big game and regularly gave “Mr. 250” a bad time for using a crow rifle, etc on deer.

While hunting, “Mr. 250” glassed a nice blacktail buck about 450 yards across a draw and up the side of a ridge. They looked it over, talked about it and decided that they would go ahead and try to get closer. When they had gotten about 150 yards closer, the wind shifted and Mr. 250 said it was now or never, put his jacket on a stump, got situated and boom.

When 338 man was telling me this story he stopped right there. I knew they had both tagged out so I asked him what the heck happened. He said that the buck dropped like it was hit by lightning. DRT. So I asked him what he said when the buck dropped. He said, “Son-of-bitch, looks like I’m going to have to get me a 22-250…”

http://forums.accuratereloadin...281094681#9281094681

Sub .24 caliber works. You gotta be up to the task...

Please explain how your response has anything to do with regulations/restrictions that have been, mandated by the state of Colorado?

A person can kill a deer or an elk with a .22 LRRF. The point is, what is going to happen to them if they are caught doing so with the listed regulations in place?

This has nothing to do with what can or cannot be done, it has to do with what can be done LEGALLY.

Who gives a rat's azz if it fits right in with the thread or not, as it was funny and what we need sometimes in these trying days that we all face!

Long thread. Didn't go through it all.

So it's ok to assume that all non hunting related business owners are anti gun in CO so boycott away at the tourism, merchandise, suppliers,etc. but leave the outfitters alone? Then it's a non boycott to me. Either boycott or don't. You shouldn't boycott selectively then the weight/effectiveness of the boycott is negated... Just my opinion.