Colorado House OKs gun-control measures
DENVER — New gun-control measures passed the Colorado House on Monday during a second day of emotional debates that has drawn attention from the White House.
The Democratic-controlled House approved a ban on large-capacity magazines, placing a limit of eight rounds for shotguns and 15 rounds for other firearms. Three Democrats joined all Republicans in voting against the bill, but the proposal passed 34-31.
“Enough is enough. I'm sick and tired of bloodshed,” said Democratic Rep. Rhonda Fields, a sponsor of the bill and representative of the district where a gunman in an Aurora movie theater killed 12 people and wounded dozens of others.
Republicans opposed the measure and others up for a final vote in the House, saying they restrict Second Amendment rights and won't prevent mass shootings.
“This bill will never keep evil people from doing evil things,” said Republican Rep. Jerry Sonnenberg of Sterling.
The House also approved a bill requiring background checks on all gun purchases, including those between private sellers and firearms bought online. Democrats were more unified in their support of that bill, with just one member voting against it in the 36-29 vote.
Other proposals would ban concealed firearms on college campuses and require that gun purchasers pay for their own background checks.
The Senate needs to consider the proposals.
Lawmakers began the debate on the bills on Friday, when they gave them initial approval, setting up the final recorded votes on Monday. Vice President Joe Biden called four Democrats on Friday during a daylong debate on the measures — including two freshmen legislators in moderate districts — to solidify support for the bills.
Democratic Rep. Dominick Moreno, who represents a district in suburban Denver, said Biden “emphasized the importance of Colorado's role in shaping national policy around this issue.”
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Rollout of health exchange draws flak from GAO official
- IRS calls right-wing Republicans ‘crazies’ in emails
- 6 narcotics officers charged with racketeering
- Ground Zero ship dated to 1773
- N.Y. opera proposes mediation as lockout looms
- Charges against Fla. mom raise ire
- House’s vote to sue Obama is historic foray into checks, balances
- U.S. coal exports undermine clean air efforts, experts say
- $17B emergency funding for Veterans Affairs health care system passes House, heads to Senate
- Army to begin interrogation of swapped POW
- Ax disengages from truck on I-95, sticks in windshield of car behind it