GUNNING FOR REFORMS: Dem state lawmakers vow to not look back, say gun debate has gone national

259

President Barack Obama’s plan to strengthen controls on guns in the United States is not likely to move the needle on Colorado’s gun laws, according to state experts and lawmakers.

Bill Karnok, left, of Grandpa's Pawn Shop in Longmont, Colo., shows Brian Hirak, a private investigator from API of Colorado, a gun that he is interested in buying on Tuesday, Jan. 5, 2016. President Barack Obama unveiled his plan Tuesday to tighten control and enforcement of firearms in the U.S.   (Cliff Grassmick/Daily Camera via AP) NO SALES; MANDATORY CREDITDavid Kopel, an attorney with the Independence Institute who is also a Second Amendment legal expert, said the president didn’t do anything new with his 10-point plan, which says licensed dealers must run background checks on prospective buyers. The president also aims to narrow a loophole for firearms sold at gun shows, flea markets and online by subjecting buyers to background checks.

“There’s never been a gun show exception,” Kopel said. “He was clever in getting so many people to pay attention to what was zero change from the existing law. He got a lot of people to confuse his talk with genuine action.”

Kopel described his view of Colorado’s gun laws as already the most extreme and cumbersome gun laws in country. The state already mandates universal background checks for gun transfers, including private sales, and requires that the background checks are conducted through a federally licensed firearms dealer, with the price of the transaction fee limited to $10.

One of the state’s most controversial gun control measures bans magazines that hold more than 15 rounds and is often criticized by the state’s Republican lawmakers.

State Rep. Lori Saine, R-Dacono, who sponsored legislation last year to repeal the ammunition limit, said she will again introduce a bill for its repeal after the measure failed in 2015.

“Considering that you can buy the same equipment in pieces and assemble a 30-round magazine in seconds, how does that help public safety?” she asked.

Democratic state lawmakers narrowly passed stricter gun control measures in 2013 following the Aurora theater shooting and the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary in Connecticut.

Various Democratic leaders in the statehouse said they have no plans to focus on gun regulation or the repeal of it this year, while party-line divisions between the state Senate and House have kept Republican lawmakers from repealing the measures passed three years ago.

“The Democrats have moved on as it relates to the legislation we passed,” said Aurora state Rep. Rhonda Fields, who attended a round-table discussion on gun control at the White Bill Karnok, right, of Grandpa's Pawn Shop in Longmont, shows Shane Angelovich a gun that he is interested in buying on Jan. 5. President Barack Obama unveiled his plan Tuesday to tighten control and enforcement of firearms in the U.S.   (Cliff Grassmick/Daily Camera via AP)House earlier in January. “There’s no reason for us to look back. Our focus is on the economy, affordable housing, making college more affordable. It’s not on our agenda to talk about guns. It’s a national debate at this point. Nothing the president did violated anyone’s Second Amendment rights. People still have a right to bear arms.”

The longtime Aurora Democrat has been a regular force for public safety and gun control. Her son, Javad Marshall Fields, along with his fiancée, was gunned down almost 10 years ago, the day before he was set to testify as a witness to a murder.

— The Associated Press
contributed to this story.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
35 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
youngju
youngju
7 years ago

Fields the Obama lackey sponsored legislation that cannot be enforced, She runs off at the mouth and accomplishes nothing.

ryecatcher
ryecatcher
7 years ago
Reply to  youngju

Look who’s running off at the mouth.

ramrodd
ramrodd
7 years ago
Reply to  ryecatcher

trolling the board with personal attacks – typical of the left

ryecatcher
ryecatcher
7 years ago
Reply to  ramrodd

Sorry to inconvenience your delusions. Typical of the gun nut crowd.

gofastgo
gofastgo
7 years ago

The Dems should have said what they meant, ‘we want everyone to have everything for free, it’s our duty to rule this country, although we don’t make a dime in profit’ What a bunch of demagogues.

ryecatcher
ryecatcher
7 years ago
Reply to  gofastgo

goo man’s demagoguery is obvious. He’s a “quack trump fan”.

ramrodd
ramrodd
7 years ago

The Marxists who infect our federal government plus the media whores who protect them will gleefully lie, falsify, fabricate, slander, libel, deceive, delude, bribe, and treasonably betray the free citizens of the United States..

Second Amendment foes lying about gun control – Firearms are our constitutionally mandated safeguard against tyranny by a powerful federal government.
Only dictators, tyrants, despots, totalitarians, and those who want to control and ultimately to enslave you support gun control.

No matter what any president, senator, congressman, or hard-left mainstream media whores tell you concerning the statist utopian fantasy of safety and security through further gun control: They are lying. If their lips are moving, they are lying about gun control. These despots truly hate America..

These tyrants hate freedom, liberty, personal responsibility, and private property. But the reality is that our citizens’ ownership of firearms serves as a concrete deterrent against despotism. They are demanding to hold the absolute power of life and death over you and your family. Ask the six million Jews, and the other five million murdered martyrs who perished in the Nazi death camps, how being disarmed by a powerful tyranny ended any chances of fighting back. Ask the murdered martyrs of the Warsaw Ghetto about gun control.

Their single agenda is to control you after you are disarmed. When the people who want to control you hold the absolute power of life and death over your family, you have been enslaved. The hard-left Marxist and Islamists who infect our federal government plus the MSM media whores who protect them will gleefully lie, falsify, fabricate, slander, libel, deceive, delude, bribe, and treasonably betray the free citizens of the United States into becoming an unarmed population. Unarmed populations have been treated as slaves and chattel since the dawn of history.

Will we stand our ground, maintaining our constitutionally guaranteed Second Amendment rights, fighting those who would enslave us?

American Thinker

ryecatcher
ryecatcher
7 years ago
Reply to  ramrodd

“American Thinker”? Sounds more like “American Idiot” to me! Here’s another second amendment gun nut on a roll. It’s the usual noise “hate freedom, government tyrants, Marxists and media whores. The man has quite an imagination but he’s a gun nut spouting the usual NRA propaganda. Too funny.

ramrodd
ramrodd
7 years ago
Reply to  ryecatcher

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that
among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure
these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers
from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes
destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish
it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles
and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to
effect their Safety and Happiness.

ryecatcher
ryecatcher
7 years ago
Reply to  ramrodd

That’s nice! Thump some Bible for us too!

Joe Hardhat
Joe Hardhat
7 years ago
Reply to  ryecatcher

Mr Snark, it seems you need an occasional reminder of what’s in the Constitution, probably the Bible too, as you seem to have contempt for both.

The following Thomas Jefferson quote is fitting for you:
“A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both, and deserve neither.”

ryecatcher
ryecatcher
7 years ago
Reply to  Joe Hardhat

Mr Know it all. You have your views I mine. No need to bolster your point of view quoting Jefferson. Jefferson and Madison both were anti federalists and ardent supporters of states rights.

On the other hand Washington, Adams and Hamilton all participants in the Constitutional Convention in 1787 would differ with Jefferson. i could easily return a quote equally “fitting for you” from one of these illustrious Founders of the Federalist persuasion in opposition to Mr Jefferson.

Regarding the Bible, I need no reminders especially those from ilks of your persuasion.

ramrodd
ramrodd
7 years ago
Reply to  ryecatcher

not only a hater of the Declaration but add scripture…..

hang a gun free sign on your home

ryecatcher
ryecatcher
7 years ago
Reply to  ramrodd

Hater of the Declaration and scripture. Obviously you’re envious. Are you sure you know the difference?

Hang a for rent sign on yours moonbeam.

gofastgo
gofastgo
7 years ago

‘Our focus is on the economy, affordable housing, making college more affordable’

Must not have had time to include $30.00 minimum wage, child care for all, married or not, To her, making everything FREE is the answer, not who’s going to pay for all of it, my gosh, and shes a representative, what nonsense.

schotts
schotts
7 years ago
Reply to  gofastgo

They said they were going to focus on those things at the start of the 2013 session. It was all progressive agenda bills for the first 3 out of 4 months of the legislative session in 2013. Hick didn’t veto a single bill. They didn’t introduce a single pro business/pro economy/pro jobs bill until April of 2013.

Last year, Democrats rejected a construction defects bill that could have significantly helped with affordable housing.

Democrats can’t be trusted. Period.

dickG
dickG
7 years ago
Reply to  gofastgo

“. . . . Must not have had time to include $30.00 minimum wage, child care for all, married or not.”
.
Must not have had time to include $30.00 minimum wage, child care (UP TO 26 YEARS OLD) for all, married or no

schotts
schotts
7 years ago

The magazine ban is a huge red herring and needs repealed or at the very minimal, amended up to 30 rounds. 99% of all gun magazines made are 30 rounds or less. So many of today’s common, most widely owned firearms come with OEM, standard size magazines holding more than 15 rounds. This is an unenforceable, over bearing restriction and is a red herring about safety.

UBC needs serious fixes and until then, it will be met with wide scale non compliance and no enforcement.

Speaking of which, how do you enforce universal background checks without universal, retroactive registration? You can’t.

Democrats – and Republicans need to fix the UBC system in Colorado. Here is a high level model of what could work. Yes, devil is in the details but we’re smart enough, have the technology to make it work.

– Open NICS or CBI to private sellers with access via phone or internt
– Make it free
– Do not include temporary transfers
– No Form 4473 or any record of the transaction
– Go / No Go decision
– Get the firearms industry behind this with PSAs focused mostly on “don’t risk selling a gun to a prohibited person…”

A final thought. Should it be required of every gun sale? Again, most would simple say yes. But so many private gun sales take place between family, friends, neighbors, etc. And by far the vast majority are harmless. Even though the system I propose is much less intrusive, is it necessary to go through the process for me to sell a gun to my life long friend and hunting buddy who already has a safe full of guns, is a prominent lawyer and doesn’t even have a speeding ticket? No, it really isn’t necessary.

jsmith5893
jsmith5893
7 years ago
Reply to  schotts

I agree. Currently, there are only 2 ways to legally sell a gun in the US to a private citizen. One is a private sale between individuals (typically like between family and friends) or by a gun dealer licensed with a Federal Firearms License (FFL) from the federal BATF. Only individuals with an FFL can run a background check through the government NICS database of prohibited persons. Private citizens cannot. Note that a person can purchase a firearm online, but the physical transfer of the firearm still must go through an FFL at the seller or an FFL local to the buyer. So if someone wants to improve the process, they should encourage the federal government to do 2 things:

1) Allow any small gun dealer to get an FFL without having a storefront. Currently, thanks to the Clinton administration’s effort to reduce the supply of guns, you can’t get an FFL if you want to sell guns only at gun shows (Google BATFE form 5310 FFL application and look at question 18a). As a result someone that wants to sell guns but can’t afford the inventory costs, zoning challenges and overhead of a storefront has to sell illegally or discretely at the edge of the law as a “private individual” and hence can’t run a background check. Rather than throwing these “kitchen table” sellers out of the system like Clinton did hoping they would go away, they should allow them to get an FFL and subject them to BATF rules, audits and oversight like they were before the Clinton administration let political anti-gun ideology get in the way.

2) Give anyone free, public, anonymous online access to the NICS database. I don’t understand why a federal database of people prohibited from owning firearms can’t be available in the public domain like federal databases for sex offenders. Unlike the sex offender database, the NICS system is really a go/no go process and no useful information has to be displayed to facilitate phishing expeditions for identity theft other than what was already known by the user making the query. It’s certainly no more revealing than the FAA’s pilot and mechanic license query system, which provides more detailed information on presumably law-abiding citizens. Once this system is implemented, you then tell private sellers if you sell or give a firearm to someone and don’t retain documented proof that says you did a favorable NICS check on the buyer, you could be held liable if they commit a gun-related crime. This would effectively close the so-called private sale loophole and still preserve the anonymity of the parties involved the same way the current background check system does now. If a private sale firearm shows up at a crime scene, the BATF follows their current procedure of using the serial number of the firearm to contact the manufacturer and ultimately the last FFL that sold the firearm to a private citizen to obtain that citizen’s name and address from the ATF form 4473 the FFL is required to keep on file. That citizen is then contacted and produces the piece of paper from the NICS background check that identifies the second private citizen who is then contacted, and so forth.

The real benefit of this proposal is how it can help identify the illusive killer with questionable behavior patterns or mental health issues that is causing so many problems. As it stands now there is no easy, fast, non-bureaucratic method for someone to determine if a suspicious person (client, neighbor, employee, student, etc) is a potential threat to society. If someone thinks an individual could be a threat, a query to a public NICS database would at least tell him or her in a few seconds if the individual could obtain a firearm. Then, armed with that information the appropriate authorities could be notified and they could decide if it was erroneous information or whether to investigate further. As it stands now, if you tell authorities you know a suspicious person they will probably ignore you, but if you tell them you know such a person and by the way according to the NICS database he can buy a firearm, they will probably be more inclined to investigate rather than risk embarrassment later if the worst happens. The same would be true if you see a suspicious acquaintance with a firearm when the NICS query says he’s prohibited from having one. It would also help provide piece of mind and a method for victims of violent crimes to ensure their assailants either on parole or still at large have not been excluded from the database because of some bureaucratic foul-up.
Other specific public safety issues where it would be useful are:

 allow potential victims to vet known stalkers or acquaintances under a restraining order
 allow gun clubs to vet potential members
 allow shooting ranges to vet suspicious customers
 help prevent straw purchases by allowing FFL’s to vet all individuals involved with the purchase of a firearm as a gift
 allow mental health workers to vet troubled individuals like the Aurora Colorado theater killer
 allow resource officers and school officials to vet suspicious students like the Arapahoe High School killer in Colorado
 allow the family of the mentally troubled Lafayette, LA killer to verify he couldn’t purchase a firearm
 allow police officers to vet anyone they contact – (note the routine background checks performed by police often do not include information about firearms because they don’t directly access the NICS database)

ryecatcher
ryecatcher
7 years ago
Reply to  schotts

Open the NICS to “private sellers”. In other words just anyone without a Federal Firearms License could access secure information with a phone call or on line. Sounds like a recipe for trouble in my opinion.

Jeff Rau
Jeff Rau
7 years ago
Reply to  ryecatcher

You think it is so bad for everyone to have access to who is denied their right to own a firearm?

ryecatcher
ryecatcher
7 years ago
Reply to  Jeff Rau

You think it’s OK for me to say I have no clue as to what you are asking? Have a nice day.

dickG
dickG
7 years ago
Reply to  ryecatcher

Hell, man, you have no clue as to what YOU are asking (or saying). Spouting Liberal-us Progress-EVIL-us talking points in a serious argument is laughable, insincere, and rude!
.

ryecatcher
ryecatcher
7 years ago
Reply to  dickG

Hell man. Back at you. Spouting wing nut in a non serious argument is not only laughable and rude but pathetic coming from someone as insecure and ignorant as yourself.

Have a nice day Elmer.

dickG
dickG
7 years ago
Reply to  ryecatcher

I’m havin’ a GREAT day, ryecatcher, considering you have run out of rational arguments pertinent to the subject at hand and are resigned to name-calling in an attempt to justify your ignorance.
.

ryecatcher
ryecatcher
7 years ago
Reply to  dickG

Please, can the sanctimony. You’re having a great day. Who cares and what does that have to do with the subject other than to tell us you’re above it all. Hypocrite!

dickG
dickG
7 years ago
Reply to  ryecatcher

YOU are the one who suggested I have a “nice day”, ryecatcher.
.
I merely confirmed to you that I was, and still am not only having a “nice day”, but a GREAT DAY!
.
The greatness of my day has been further enhanced by the knowledge that you don’t read what you write.
.

ryecatcher
ryecatcher
7 years ago
Reply to  dickG

“The greatness of your day is enhanced by the knowledge I don’t read what I write”. That’s nice!

And you? Do you read what you write or have any clue as to what you are saying other than I’m having a great day. Judging from your initial comment this last reply was the most laughable.

Have a nice day.

jsmith5893
jsmith5893
7 years ago
Reply to  schotts

Re: “The magazine ban is a huge red herring”

It’s worse than that. The 15 round limit is the least of the problems. The main problem is in the abstruse wording of the law. It does not define “owner”, “continuous possession” or “readily convertible” and without clarification it puts every gun owner who owns a magazine that holds more than 15 rounds or a magazine with a removable baseplate (which is most modern magazines) in violation of the law unless you live alone and have all of your effected magazines with you at all times wherever you go. The only things preventing mass arrests are that the government sees no need to do it at this time, law enforcement authorities are unwilling to enforce it and the technical guidance promulgated by the state Attorney General says to ignore these issues. However, that doesn’t change the law nor prevent some future administration from changing the technical guidance nor prevent some current anti-gun law enforcement officer along with a sympathetic DA from making an example of some gun owner by dragging him/her through the front end of the justice system only to have the charges ultimately be dismissed with no option for reparations. This law is in essence an unadvertised, unenforced stealth restriction on the private ownership of magazines (and hence firearms) that could be invoked at any time by the Governor or Attorney General and while the courts may overturn it, that could take years.

Joe Hardhat
Joe Hardhat
7 years ago

Gun reform is just a pretense to nibble away at the Second Amendment.

jsmith5893
jsmith5893
7 years ago
Reply to  Joe Hardhat

Re: “Gun reform is just a pretense to nibble away at the Second Amendment”

True. The purpose of the Second Amendment is clearly stated in the preamble to the Bill of Rights – specifically “The convention of a number of states having at the time of their adopting of the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse, of its powers that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added”. Also, when the Second Amendment was written, every weapon was a weapon of war and the militia was equally matched with the regulars. For instance, I’ve never seen it said that the regulars could carry 30 lead bullets but the militia could only carry 15. In addition, some say the militia had better capabilities than the regulars did because many militia members had Kentucky rifles as opposed to smooth bore muskets. If there was a disparity in capabilities, it would be pretty hard to prevent a “misconstruction or abuse, of its powers” – so in reality, the citizen militia of today should have the same firearms as the current US military. Unfortunately we are no longer equally matched because we have let our gun rights be eroded by buying into this notion if we just compromise to accommodate the people who – for whatever reason – don’t like guns they will quit trying to take away our gun rights. History has shown that no matter how much we compromise, it’s never enough so we need to stop compromising.

Re: “However, automatic weapons were not around at the time”

Actually there were harbingers of modern firearms in the 1700’s – to name a few; 1718 Puckle gun, the 1757 Ferguson Rifle, and the 1781 Giordinni Rifle.that was carried by the Lewis and Clarke expedition commissioned by President Thomas Jefferson who was a supporter of the Bill of Rights

Re: “there should be a way for vetting law abiding citizens in procuring automatic weapons”

Assuming you’re really talking about automatic firearms and not confusing them with semi-autos, there is a way under the 1934 National Firearms Act. But they are expensive and the supply is limited because of the Hughes Amendment to the 1986 Firearms Owner’s Protection Act that banned the sale of any news ones to private citizens that were manufactured after 1986.

dickG
dickG
7 years ago
Reply to  Joe Hardhat

It is true, that automatic weapons were not around at the time, and neither was the internet or telephone, TV, or radio.
Therefore, using YOUR Liber-Logic, I’m okay with REASONABLE on these methods of communication.
.
there Is a way for vetting law abiding citizens in procuring automatic weapons. IF you can afford them, the license, and the tax!
.
So what your are saying is that you fully support and defend the principles enumerated in the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, EXCEPT FOR . . . . . !
.
Hypocrite!
,

dickG
dickG
7 years ago

The reason Liberal “lawmakers” never look back is because the cannot bear to learn the ugly lessons of history which refute their “progressive” ideology!
.
.

Diamondback
Diamondback
7 years ago

Well We the People aren’t done debating and fighting these oath breaking, tyrant wannabe azzhats about it.

A War on Usurpers could very well be in America’s future.

fishunter
fishunter
7 years ago

Why won’t the Democrats look back and do the right thing for the people – not Obama of the Left. I believe the majority of people in Colorado (at least the West Slope) would rather not have those laws that were enacted, almost in the dark of night. There was no time for discussion, in fact, most people did not know about them before they became law. Hickenlooper should have vetoed them but he is an Obama yes man also.