Colorado’s Democratic-controlled House on Sunday passed a bill that would ban the sale and transfer of semiautomatic firearms, a major step for the legislation after roughly the same bill was swiftly killed by Democrats last year.

The bill, which passed on a 35-27 vote, is now on its way to the Democratic-led state Senate. If it passes there, it could bring Colorado in line with 10 other states — including California, New York and Illinois — that have prohibitions on semiautomatic guns.

But even in a state plagued by some of the nation’s worst mass shootings, such legislation faces headwinds.

Colorado’s political history is purple, shifting blue only recently. The bill’s chances of success in the state Senate are lower than they were in the House, where Democrats have a 46-19 majority and a bigger far-left flank. Gov. Jared Polis, also a Democrat, has indicated his wariness over such a ban.

    • Talaraine@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      7 months ago

      Are we reading the same link?

      A person in violation of the prohibitions will be assessed a first-time penalty of $250,000 and $500,000 for each subsequent violation.

        • Talaraine@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          I read the link you posted, and is the summary of the actual text of the bill inaccurate? Not even trying to argue.

          • catloaf
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            7 months ago

            Either it is, or the bill was amended and one of the two is out of date.

          • BlackRing@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            7 months ago

            I’m more concerned that something that important is only in the summary. Either I don’t understand how bills are written, granted in a state I don’t live in, or the text was changed but the summary not?

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          7 months ago

          It might refer out to an already existing class of punishment. I will admit I don’t have the time to read it right now to see if that’s the case. I am severely disappointed though if it’s not actually all semi-auto weapons. Trying to divide military from civilian semi-auto rifles is ridiculous.

    • BallsandBayonets@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      7 months ago

      Like the “End Hedge fund ownership of residential properties” bill that is just a tax on hedge funds that own over 100 residences, a tax that they will happily pass on to their tenants (after adding another 25% on top to cover the emotional cost of being taxed by the evil government!).

      Laws don’t have teeth in this country because they are always designed to only punish the poor.