Hunters threaten to boycott Colorado after passage of recent gun laws

[Bumper64]

Hunters across the country are boycotting Colorado because of recent legislation meant to curtail gun violence.

The state is known to be home to some of the best elk hunting in the country. But after its governor, John Hickenlooper, signed controversial bills this month banning ammunition magazines that hold more than 15 rounds, and require background checks for private and online gun sales, some out-of-state hunters say they'll take their business elsewhere.

Hunting outfitters say people began canceling trips after the legislation passed, the Colorado Springs Gazette reported. The numbers are few, but growing.

 

 

"If those jaded sportsmen from out of state and right here at home really do follow through with their threats to never spend another penny on hunting and fishing in Colorado, well, the hunting and fishing just got a lot better for those who do participate."

- Scott Willoughby writes in The Denver Post

 

 

Northwest Colorado hunting guide Chris Jurney expects more state defections in a major tourism industry. Out-of-state hunters accounted for 15 percent of hunting licenses last year, 86,000, compared with 489,000 for residents.

 

"There's a united front of sportsmen that are tired of having their freedoms and liberties and fundamental rights taken away from them," said Jurney, vice president of the Colorado Outfitters Association.

 

"That kind of unity among sportsmen is going to be big, and unfortunately for those of us who live here, we're going to suffer the consequences of this misguided legislation."

 

Jurney said he expects the actual impact of gun regulations on Colorado hunters will be small. Varmint hunters tend to use high-capacity magazines, so they might be limited. He also is concerned about a provision that limits the loaning of a gun to 72 hours. Many youth hunts, in which most guns are loaned, last longer, he said.

 

Jeff Lepp, owner of Specialty Sports, a gun and hunting shop in Colorado Springs, predicts hunters are going to choose to visit other Rocky Mountain states.

"Small mountain towns and rural towns in this state are going to lose a lot of money because you're not going to see the number of out-of-state hunters coming here. Other states are going to see a growth," he said.

 

Michael Bane, a producer for The Outdoor Channel, also announced he will no longer film his four shows in Colorado.

 

The new gun laws and others were drawn up in response to mass killings at a suburban Denver movie theater and a Connecticut elementary school.

 

Colorado Parks and Wildlife spokesman Randy Hampton said his agency has asked the state attorney general's office for advice on impacts to hunters. While legal possession of high-capacity magazines is grandfathered in, officials want to make sure they are still legal to use.

 

Meanwhile, Scott Willoughby, who writes an outdoors column for The Denver Post, wrote that the disenfranchised hunters' "sour grapes" may benefit local hunters.

 

He wrote, "if those jaded sportsmen from out of state and right here at home really do follow through with their threats to never spend another penny on hunting and fishing in Colorado, well, the hunting and fishing just got a lot better for those who do participate."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/27/hunters-threaten-to-boycott-colorado-after-passage-recent-gun-laws/#ixzz2On6YkinH

[hame55]

Good. Boycott Colorado.

Maybe the deer elk and bear will live in peace....

[Bumper64]

Good. Boycott Colorado.

Maybe the deer elk and bear will live in peace....

Why so grumpy all the time! Holy Cow!

[Sentinel7]

Yep the group that I hunt with have been going there for years we decided not to set foot in Colorado for any reason anymore.

One of our group has an uncle who has some mountain property near Ashville NC So that's where we are heading this season.

 

 

No Surrender No Retreat and No Compromise

[Shabibilicious]

From an elk's point of view.......I'm stoked!    

 

GO RV, then BV

[FlintNPebbles]

Okay....to risk being called a liberal....what exactly is wrong with doing background checks on all gun sales? Gun shops have had to do them for years, now they are asking private sellers and gun shows to do them.  I really am trying to understand the reason why this action is not wanted. To me, it makes sense to keep individuals who will not qualify to own a firearm from getting one. But if any of you can explain to me how it's a bad thing then I am willing to listen.

 

I do not agree with limiting the high capacity magazines, especially in bear country. So that part of the law I would have an objection to.

[Shabibilicious]

Okay....to risk being called a liberal....what exactly is wrong with doing background checks on all gun sales? Gun shops have had to do them for years, now they are asking private sellers and gun shows to do them.  I really am trying to understand the reason why this action is not wanted. To me, it makes sense to keep individuals who will not qualify to own a firearm from getting one. But if any of you can explain to me how it's a bad thing then I am willing to listen.

 

I do not agree with limiting the high capacity magazines, especially in bear country. So that part of the law I would have an objection to.

 

It's actually a very conservative point of view to error on the side of caution......so I am with you on this one.  The problem most people are having is with the thought of their freedoms being infringed upon.  Privately selling a weapon to whoever will buy it......is not the same as selling grandma's old china.  As always, just my opinion.

 

GO RV, then BV

[Sentinel7]

How do you know if a weapon I bought in 1977 was sold in 1989 or 2000 or 2016

It is a unenforceable law unless universal gun registration is mandatory.

What happens three years after such a law goes into effect and a weapon you sold in 1990

turns up at a crime scene how are they going to handle it unless there is universal registration

Every time there is gun registration they come back and take the guns Every Time.

 

This universal background check is a pre-curser to gun registration and the argument will be we are not trying to take your guns 

what is so bad about knowing where the guns are.

If this law passes America will disarmed within ten years.

 

Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely

 

The only thing that keeps America free is that the government is afraid of if they push us too far.

Gandhi was against violence but he stated that the blackest day in India's existence was when they took all of the peoples guns.

 

 

No Surrender No Retreat and No Compromise 

[FlintNPebbles]

How do you know if a weapon I bought in 1977 was sold in 1989 or 2000 or 2016

It is a unenforceable law unless universal gun registration is mandatory.

What happens three years after such a law goes into effect and a weapon you sold in 1990

turns up at a crime scene how are they going to handle it unless there is universal registration

Every time there is gun registration they come back and take the guns Every Time.

 

This universal background check is a pre-curser to gun registration and the argument will be we are not trying to take your guns 

what is so bad about knowing where the guns are.

If this law passes America will disarmed within ten years.

 

Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely

 

The only thing that keeps America free is that the government is afraid of if they push us too far.

Gandhi was against violence but he stated that the blackest day in India's existence was when they took all of the peoples guns.

 

 

No Surrender No Retreat and No Compromise 

Thank you.

However, can you elaborate a little on the setence of "Everytime there is a gun registration they come back and take the guns EVERY TIME" ? 

I have 3 guns registered to me, no one has come to take them. Are you speaking in the forward tense and projecting that this is what will happen as the government gains more and more access to personal information?

 

Registration in and by itself is not a bad thing. If you sell a gun and it is used in a felony, they trace it back to you. If you purchased that weapon at a store that did a back ground check and registered it. If you purchased it from your neighbor and then sold it to your sisters boyfriend it will come back to your neighbor.

 

I have only purchased guns in North Dakota and Illinois, but for both of those states, I am the registered owner and if the gun is used to commit a crime, I am the one they will look for unless there is a law that is enforced that requires me to have a background check on a purchaser and then submit a registration for that purchaser. Do I think gun owners will want to go through the trouble when they can sell it "under the table"....nope, can't see them doing it. It will be a law like many many others that do not get enforced.

[Sentinel7]

You mean aside from Cuba, China, Russia, and most other totalitarian states?

let's see...New Zealand, 1921 the ownership of revolvers were allowed in the name of personal defense, 1970s this list was used to confiscate all revolvers.

Canada...registration list 1990s, old guns grandfathered in, but this list is used for the state to confiscate the guns upon the death of the holder with no compensation to the estate

1996 Australia used it's list of registered semiauto hunting rifles to confiscate all those weapons.

The UK government instituted handgun registration in 1921, and about every 10 years or so they further restrict what can be owned and use the registration rolls to collect what is illegal.

How about Chicago, put in registration of long guns, used that same registration to confiscate semiauto long guns in the early 1990s

What about California, couldn't make up it's mind if the SKS was covered or not (1989), decided AFTER the registration period was closed that they needed to be registered, declared a second 'grace period' for registration...then about 5 years ago they decided that those SKSs registered during the grace period were illegal because the grace period was illegal, and in certain cities and counties sent law enforcement to the listed addresses demanding surrender of the firearm. Because there is the legal option of removing the gun from the state of CA, and these officers had no warrants, smart gun owners turned them away with the claim 'I gave it to a relative in Oregon (or whatever)' but MANY were seized with no compensation. (Cities and counties later on offered compensation for anyone who had a receipt, but the police weren't giving out receipts, only a few people who demanded them had them and they were basically notes scribbled on whatever spare paper the officer had)

Side Note, the SKS was the MOST common weapon in the hands of Korean Shop Owners who used them to defend themselves and businesses when the LA riots happened.

 

 

Still have any questions

 

No Surrender No Retreat and No Compromise

[gymrat76541]

Okay....to risk being called a liberal....what exactly is wrong with doing background checks on all gun sales? Gun shops have had to do them for years, now they are asking private sellers and gun shows to do them.  I really am trying to understand the reason why this action is not wanted. To me, it makes sense to keep individuals who will not qualify to own a firearm from getting one. But if any of you can explain to me how it's a bad thing then I am willing to listen.

 

I do not agree with limiting the high capacity magazines, especially in bear country. So that part of the law I would have an objection to.

 

I agree that back ground checks only make sense IF there is a list out there of felons & crazy people to compare the buyers against.

The high capacity magizines limit I do NOT agree with at all. With an automatic weapon the lag time in changing magizines (2 or 3 seconds) does not make this provision pass the common sense test.

I think the MAIN obections are that at some point the government will track who owns guns via the registrations and attempt to take them back from lawful owners. California is doing this now for people reported to be undergoing counseling and those who have committed felonies.

[Biker]

Its Not to make you safe its to make you harmless to the Government. They will have 100 round clips with assault rifles and you will be able to have a shot gun. Out Gunned from the start. The 2nd amendment was put in place not to be changed ever to protect YOU, YOUR FAMILY, and to protect you from BIG GOVERNMENT like we see now. Take there guns government can put in place any law they want and we the people will have no say so and that my friends is whats going on. If you give an inch it will never stop, Like our Buddy Joe Biden has all ready said we will not stop. First the registration, then the clip size then the assault rifles then your shot guns then your hand guns then you defenseless against any one. Any one in my eyes that dont stand up for there God given Rights is a simple dumb Moron who don't deserve to be in out great country.They were put in place to protect you not harm you. I'm for possible registration but they want this and so many other bans along with the same package. NOT.

[FlintNPebbles]

I agree that back ground checks only make sense IF there is a list out there of felons & crazy people to compare the buyers against.

The high capacity magizines limit I do NOT agree with at all. With an automatic weapon the lag time in changing magizines (2 or 3 seconds) does not make this provision pass the common sense test.

I think the MAIN obections are that at some point the government will track who owns guns via the registrations and attempt to take them back from lawful owners. California is doing this now for people reported to be undergoing counseling and those who have committed felonies.

Thank you for responding in a courteous manner. Your example of California is exactly the answer I was looking for as far as why the registration is being so objected to.

 

I also agree wholeheartedly with the idiocracy of banning high capacity magazines.

 

 

Sentinel7...can you tell me how many of the countries you listed had a constitutional right to bear arms? I am not trying to argue with you, I am trying to understand your, and alot of others, viewpoints. I am not stupid nor a liberal. I have been raised differently than you obviously and am trying to understand your views. Which, if you or others can "verbalize" without making this into "if you have an opposing view then you are anti-American", then I am well open to having my views changed.

[Slaydadea]

Good. Boycott Colorado.

Maybe the deer elk and bear will live in peace....

A little salt and pepper. It'll be ok.

[magawatt]

I'm outraged! ! It is do unfair. Sometimes it takes me fifteen shots on full auto just to hit the darn thing and another twenty to finish the job. This bogus law will ruin hunting for me.