Both houses of the Colorado legislature have passed a package of gun violence prevention measures, including a measure to limit ammunition magazines. While a universal background checks measure is still pending in a conference committee, passage of the four bills would mark a significant step forward for a state whose gun reform movements have stalled even though the state has been the site of several of the deadliest and most high-profile mass shootings. Reuters reports:

The most controversial of the bills that are now headed to the desk of Democratic Governor John Hickenlooper is a ban on ammunition magazines with more than 15 rounds, which the governor said he will sign into law. […]

Other bills included in the package of gun-control laws approved by Colorado lawmakers included a measure to make firearm buyers pay for their own background checks and a ban on online certification for concealed-carry permits, both of which Hickenlooper has said he supports.

Another measure would bar gun purchases by people convicted of domestic violence crimes. Hickenlooper had previously said he was undecided about that until he could see the final version.

One remaining gun-control measure to require background checks for all firearms transfers was sent to a conference committee on Wednesday, so that both chambers could hash out differences between the Senate and House versions.

The proposals that won final approval on Wednesday had received little Republican support.

The measure limiting ammunition sales is already prompting backlash from conservative legislators, who said a day after its passage that they will move for a 2014 ballot initiative to repeal the law.

In January, New York became the first state to enact comprehensive legislation in the wake of the Newtown tragedy. But in spite of public opinion that is shifting toward support for universal background checks and other sensible gun violence prevention measures, several states including Wyoming, South Dakota, Kansas, Tennessee, Texas, and Arizona have actually moved to relax firearms laws since the Newtown tragedy, while others are pushing unconstitutional nullification measures claiming to thwart federal attempts to take away guns.

NATIONAL HARBOR, Maryland — NRA President David Keene defended lobbyist Bob Welch’s statement that the group would continue weakening gun laws as soon as the “Connecticut effect” had subsided, saying that he had no reason to apologize.

Welch’s comments came last month at the NRA’s Wisconsin State Convention and were first reported by ThinkProgress. Both Connecticut senators, as well as the congresswoman representing Newtown, condemned the remarks and called on the NRA to repudiate them.

ThinkProgress ran into Keene at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) on Thursday and asked whether he would apologize for the lobbyist’s remarks. “You only apologize for the things that you did,” Keene replied. As Keene’s entourage tried to prevent ThinkProgress from questioning further, we asked whether he thought Welch ought to apologize, the NRA President was candid: “no.”

KEYES: I know Sen. Blumenthal and some others had called on the NRA to apologize for the “Connecticut effect” comment made by the Wisconsin lobbyist.

KEENE: You only apologize for the things that you did.

KEYES: Do you think that he ought to apologize?

KEENE: No.

KEYES: No? Do you think it’s insensitive to the families of Newtown?

KEENE: I think uh…

KEYES: Do you think that it’s insensitive, sir? This isn’t a trick question, I’m honestly asking you.

Watch it:

This is the first time the NRA leadership has directly addressed the controversy, though the group had initially claimed no association with Welch, who represents the NRA’s Wisconsin chapter.

A third measure to reform gun violence prevention passed the Senate Judiciary Committee Thursday along party lines, but not without bitter opposition from Republicans, who claimed that such a ban would violate the Second Amendment and analogized restrictions on guns to censoring books under the First Amendment.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) battered Democrats with questions about whether they would support restrictions on the First or Fourth Amendments he claimed were similar to those an assault weapons ban would impose on the Second:

I pose to the senator from California [Sen. Diane Feinstein], would she deem it consistent with the Bill of Rights for Congress to engage in the same endeavor that we are contemplating doing with the Second Amendment in the context of the First or Fourth Amendment, namely, would she consider it constitutional for congress to specify that the first amendment shall apply only to the following books and shall not apply to the books that congress has deemed outside the protection of the Bill of Rights?

But Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) obliterated his argument by noting the analogous actual restrictions on the actual First Amendment:

In reference to the question my colleague from Texas asked, would you limit books? Would you name specific books? Yeah. It’s constitutional within the ambit of the First Amendment to eliminate child pornography. And we have lots of laws that are very explicit about that. Very explicit. That are constitutional, that have been upheld as constitutional. Similarly, you can’t falsely scream fire in a crowded theater. Similarly, we have libel laws. Every one of these is an impingement on the sacred First Amendment, upheld as constitutional. There are reasonable limits on each amendment, and I think it is anomalous, to put it kindly, for either side to interpret one amendment so expansively and another amendment so narrowly that it just doesn’t add up because your interpretation of the Constitution should be consistent.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) then dealt the final blow with a direct comparison between First and Second Amendment restrictions both intended to protect public safety:

It is hard to imagine that it would be a violation of the First Amendment for somebody to yell fire in a crowded theater but it’s not a violation of the Second Amendment to prevent somebody from bringing a hundred-round magazine into a crowded theater in a Aurora, Colorado.

Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) made a different constitutional argument, noting “we’ve heard testimony there are some 4 million weapons” banned by the bill. He cited the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2008 opinion in D.C. v. Heller to assert that that 4 million weapons necessarily “qualifies as common use” as defined by the decision and “cannot be banned.”

While Justice Antonin Scalia’s majority opinion did strike down a ban on weapons in “common use,” he specifically stated that the Constitution allows bans on “dangerous and unusual” weapons. Lee failed to explain how the fact that manufacturers of “dangerous and unusual” weapons have manufactured so many has any bearing  on whether are not they meet the definition of “in common use.”

Whitehouse lamented the “clear” intractable Republican opposition to the assault weapons ban and suggested that a separate vote on the high-capacity magazines element of the bill would have more success in passing the Senate. The Senate judiciary Committee has already approved measures to expand background checks and reduce gun trafficking, but they all face significant obstacles in both the full Senate and the House.

The National Rifle Association and pro-gun politicians have amped up their fearmongering since the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre, warning that President Obama’s push for gun regulations like universal background checks is a tyrannical plot to confiscate all guns and possibly impose sharia law over unarmed Americans.

One Idaho legislator is taking this threat seriously. State Sen. Jim Rice (R) proposed a state constitutional amendment on Wednesday to draft all adults into militias to combat any effort by the federal government to alter the Second Amendment and confiscate guns. While conscientious objectors would be allowed to opt out of service, Rice said on Twitter he would expand the draft to men and women of all ages:

While Rice hasn’t offered specific language for his proposed amendment, he indicated that the age and gender requirements would be dropped, making all adults eligible for service.

“Today we held a print hearing on my proposed state constitutional amendment that will eliminate age and gender discrimination from our definition of the state militia,” the lawmaker wrote in a message posted to Twitter. “This will allow the state to backstop the individual right to keep and bear arms in an effective way that is supported by the reasoning in all the U.S. Supreme Court decisions.”

Rice plans to put his proposal up for a vote on Idaho’s 2014 general ballot. The amendment is just the latest in state-level efforts against even basic federal gun regulation. Several states have passed laws to nullify federal law and criminalize police officers who try to enforce federal law. Despite the hysterical reactions from pro-gun lawmakers, the majority of Americans, including gun owners, support the measures included in Obama’s gun violence prevention plan, including universal background checks, a ban on high capacity magazine sales, and closing the gun show loophole. Nowhere in the president’s plan does he call for the confiscation of weapons.

A 13-year-old student in Durban, South Africa accidentally shot himself in the leg at school this week – reportedly using a school security guard’s gun. Guards are not armed at the school, but this guard had allegedly brought his personal gun from home. IOL reports:

A security guard was on duty at an oThongathi (Tongaat) primary school when the teen allegedly removed the guard’s private gun from his unsecured bag.

The Grade 7 pupil at Hambanathi Primary, sustained a single gunshot wound to his thigh and is reported to be in a stable condition at Osindisweni Hospital, in Verulam.

According to the school principal, he had allegedly removed the gun from the guard’s bag and was attempting to shove it into the waist of his pants, when a shot accidentally went off, said the school principal, Mrs S Mahlinza.

The guard, who was meant to be unarmed, is contracted by the KwaZulu-Natal Department of Education.

He has been arrested and charged for failing to secure his firearm.

The incident has prompted calls for “urgent” action to ban guns in schools, with officials citing the recent Newton, Ct. tragedy. In the United States, meanwhile, the National Rifle Association has urged more armed school guards as a solution to preventing future school shootings, and several states are now considering legislative proposals, in spite of scientific and historical evidence that armed school guards don’t prevent these sorts of incidents. Many states are even implementing programs to arm teachers and add gun courses for students.

The physical danger of armed guards highlighted by this incident is not the only threat posed by the NRA’s plan. Placing more officers in schools has also been correlated with drastic and racially disproportionate upticks in student arrests – often as an alternative means of school discipline. The criminalizing of minor student infractions known as the “school-to-prison pipeline” is already an epidemic in some states, and has the potential to dramatically alter a child’s future by funneling them out of school and into the criminal justice system.

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) has joined fellow Connecticut Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) in condemning the National Rifle Association for its Wisconsin lobbyists’ comments downplaying the importance on the Newtown shooting.

This past weekend, Wisconsin NRA lobbyist Bob Welch declared at the group’s annual meeting that they would soon continue weakening the nation’s gun laws, but would have to wait for the “Connecticut effect” to blow over first.

Murphy chastised the NRA for Welch’s remark during an MSNBC interview on Wednesday:

MURPHY: I think we will get a vote and I think we’ll get a vote because Newtown changed everything in this country. There were a lot of people wearing ribbons on the floor of the House of Representatives last night, and they were Republicans and Democrats. The NRA said yesterday they were going to wait for the “Newtown effect” or the “Connecticut effect” to dissipate before they went back to lobbying to weaken gun laws. Well, it’s not going to dissipate. The fact is that this nation has been transformed. I think the president was right to say, listen, republicans can’t hide from this. They need to call a vote on the floor of the Senate and House and tell the American public what side they are on. If Republicans want to be the party of assault weapons, of high-capacity magazine clips, they are on the wrong side of the American public and the wrong side of history.

Watch it:

Two other Nutmeg State lawmakers similarly condemned the NRA for their “Connecticut effect” comments yesterday, Blumenthal and Rep. Elizabeth Esty (D-CT), who represents Newtown in Congress.

The freshman congresswoman who represents Newtown, Connecticut condemned the NRA in a statement on Tuesday for the group’s offensive comments about the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.

Over the weekend, lobbyist Bob Welch dismissed the importance of the Newtown massacre, telling an annual Wisconsin NRA meeting that they will be able to continue weakening the nation’s gun laws as soon as the “Connecticut effect” dissipates.

Freshman Rep. Elizabeth Esty (D-CT) was not pleased to hear the NRA’s comments:

Having met with families and members of the Newtown community numerous times since December 14, I’ve witnessed this community’s pain and their strength. To suggest that the loss of 20 precious children – the loss of six talented and courageous teachers and administrators – is an ‘effect’ that will somehow disappear is callous, and it is wrong. The tragedy in Newtown has irrevocably changed the lives of people in that community, and it’s been felt across the country. I welcome all perspectives to a reasoned conversation about making our communities and our families safer while respecting the rights of law-abiding gun owners. Yet the statement by a NRA lobbyist is a reminder of the arrogance and political cynicism we’ve seen from the NRA’s leadership. They just don’t get it, and their unwillingness to understand that the tragedy has compelled Americans to act makes them less and less relevant to the conversation.

Esty isn’t the only lawmaker condemning the NRA for its distasteful comments. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) reprimanded the NRA during a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee hearing on Tuesday and in a Huffington Post op-ed, calling the remarks “callous and offensive” and demanding that NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre repudiate them.

Concluding his State of the Union address Tuesday night, President Obama invoked the families of recent gun violence victims, who attended the speech to represent the need for gun violence prevention measures. House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) stood in respect.

Obama talked with emotion about 15-year-old Hadiya Pendleton, who was gunned down shortly after performing in Obama’s inaugural parade. He then recognized the victims of the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre, the Aurora theater shooting, the Sikh temple shooting, the Tucson shopping center shooting and the Virginia Tech shooting:

Hadiya’s parents, Nate and Cleo, are in this chamber tonight, along with more than two dozen Americans whose lives have been torn apart by gun violence. They deserve a vote. Gabby Giffords deserves a vote. The families of Newtown deserve a vote. The families of Aurora deserve a vote. The families of Oak Creek, and Tucson, and Blacksburg, and the countless other communities ripped open by gun violence – they deserve a simple vote.

Watch it:

The NRA recently dismissed the grief of these families as “the Connecticut effect,” which would subside in time for the lobbying group to continue to push a radical gun agenda.

Obama’s gun regulation plan calls for universal background checks, expanded mental health care services, improving gun ownership databases and a ban on high capacity magazines.

During a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee hearing on reducing gun violence Tuesday, Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) called on NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre to repudiate comments made by the group’s Wisconsin-based lobbyist that they were waiting for the “Connecticut effect” to wear off before pushing more pro-gun laws.

The comments were first reported by ThinkProgress on Monday.

“I want to express my regret at a statement that was made I think within the last 24 or 48 hours by a lobbyist for the National Rifle Association who said that his group was hoping that the ‘Connecticut effect’ would pass so that his group could be more effective in its lobbying,” Blumenthal said during the hearing.

Countering the NRA’s belief that the American public will soon forget about the 26 people who were slaughtered at Sandy Hook Elementary School, Blumenthal cited ThinkProgress’ report and argued that “the ‘Connecticut effect’ will last and it will be a call to action.”

Blumenthal called the NRA’s comment “an insult to all of us in America but most especially to the 26 families in Newtown who directly suffered this loss,” and called on LaPierre to “repudiate and reject it.”

Watch it:

The Wisconsin NRA, which already succeeded in passing concealed-carry in 2011, plans to push for a Stand Your Ground law, made famous after the death of Trayvon Martin, in the Badger State.