Magazine salesmen and embattled Sheriff Terry Maketa at a press conference last year, photo via 7 News

It wasn’t Gov. John Hickenlooper who opened political fire on Colorado sheriffs this week, despite wild media reports to the contrary.

It was a group of Colorado county sheriffs that fired up a faux controversy yesterday after Hickenlooper talked to sheriffs the previous Friday at an annual meeting in Aspen.

Magazine salesmen and embattled Sheriff Terry Maketa at a press conference last year, photo via 7 News
Magazine salesmen and embattled Sheriff Terry Maketa at a press conference last year, photo via 7 News

Some of the sheriffs, the same ones who refused last year to enforce Colorado’s newest gun-control laws and have since sued the state to overturn them, accused Hickenlooper of being stupid and disingenuous about his support of them and the laws and his part in enacting them.

The entire stunt is nothing more than election-year melodramatics.

Hickenlooper’s gaffe here happened when agreed to talk to this group of self-aggrandizing gunslingers to begin with. Not that Hickenlooper didn’t make missteps here and elsewhere along his political path, but this was a phony gunfight from the get go.

Let’s review some important stuff here that these sheriffs regularly overlook in their zeal to make their case and their day.

There were two laws enacted by state lawmakers in 2013, the session after James Holmes used high-capacity automatic assault weapons to murder 12 people in an Aurora theater and wound another 70. A few months later, Adam Lanza massacred 20 little boys and girls and six of their teachers at Sandy Hook Elementary School, using, during one part of the slaughter, a high-capacity assault rifle magazine made right here in Colorado.

The first law only served to make state gun-purchase background checks uniform in the state. Where some private party sales of weapons were previously exempt from the background checks, they no longer are. Even after all of this Sheriff-of-Nuttingham blustering and lawsuits, 85 percent of Colorado residents still support the measure, according to a recent Quinnipiac poll. Just like critics complain about, it means that if you want to give your son, daughter or nephew your beloved hunting rifle or Kill-O-Matic Brain-Blaster, your budding sure-shot has to pass a background check. Almost all of Colorado doesn’t have a problem with that.

What really set off these fine county law enforcers was the legislation that banned high-capacity automatic-weapon magazines. These are the metal and plastic cases filled with ammo allowing gunmen to fire one round per trigger squeeze about as fast as you can squeeze a trigger. Some of these inventions can hold up to 100 rounds. That’s 100 rounds easily delivered to a bale of hay, the side of a tree or inside a school lunchroom in about a minute. Doesn’t everybody want or need one of these?

Colorado police officers don’t think so. In fact, overlooked in this faux controversy is the fact the Colorado chiefs of police have long supported this high-capacity magazine ban and similar measures. You have to ask yourself, what cop thinks it’s a good idea for the public to have access to weapons created to take out a crowd of soldiers, cops, kids or moviegoers? How many times in Colorado has some poor innocent dude sitting in his boxers, watching tractor pulls on TV and minding his own business been ambushed by crazed terrorists brandishing these military machines?

The most important thing about these and other pushes at reasonable increases in gun control? Nobody, not one person under the dome, has suggested that the government get busy grabbing guns, limiting access to ammunition, or telling people they can’t protect themselves. Nobody. All of the wringing of hands, hyperbole and outright lies? They’re just political lies.

What too many people forget here is that these sheriffs helping to perpetuate this hysteria are politicians. Most — if not all — share a common trait: Republicans with a magazine to grind against the Democratic governor.

These sheriffs are trying to tell the public that nobody asked them nothing about any of this as the law was being created. That’s a load of crap.

Along the way, as the whole world testified in the state House and Senate for and against this bill, mostly against, sheriffs were right there heating up the committee chairs with everyone else. And right in front of the cameras? Sheriff Happy Pants himself, Terry Maketa from Colorado Springs, waving magazines for the press to see and assuring that his credibility was on the line in deciding not to enforce Colorado gun laws. And we all know what a loaded gun Maketa turned out to be. This is a man who doesn’t have the temerity nor the ethics to step down after being caught with his happy pants down all over town. Don’t talk to me about credibility and honesty.

No, there’s no controversy here other than what petty politicians are dreaming up for the media to mull over. This was a made-for-talk-trash-radio event, folks.

Did Hickenlooper mishandle pushing back against the sheriffs? Probably. Who cares? Does it mean these two laws are any less valuable? Hell no. We’re they written so that they’re difficult to enforce? That’s for state lawyers and others to decide. If they are, modify them to ensure their intent and end this fake fury for good.

And as for these sure-shooting sheriffs-turned-constitutional-lawyers: Spend your time protecting the public instead of preaching politics.

Reach Editor Dave Perry at 303-750-7555 or dperry@aurorasentinel.com

94 replies on “PERRY: Shifty sheriff exploits against Hickenlooper is just Colorado’s own dope opera ”

    1. I love it when liberals and anti-gun people say ‘assault weapon.’ Umm, arent all weapons meant to ‘assault’ or harm someone? The purpose of weapons is to kill or seriously harm someone, whether it’s a gun, a knife, a bat, a blunt object, a sword, a missle, bombs, explosives, etc. What ‘weapon’ isn’t mean to harm people? And anything can be a weapon. A pair of scissors can be a weapon, too. Are we going to ban those?

        1. Yes. Yes they are. The vast majority of people who suffer a gunshot wound survive. Guns are not the death machines of your fevered imagination, and they’re really not much more efficient at close range than a bladed weapon or a bludgeon. E.g. Tueller Drill.

  2. Vast majority of rank and file police officers in Colorado do not support these laws and will not enforce them as they are, unenforceable.

    Your knowledge of firearms is lacking. Your understanding of the new laws is weak.

    Yeah, what a load of crap.

  3. Get the clowns out of management and get the clowns out of the Sheriff’s Office. It’s time to hire law enforcement professionals with managerial experience into the sheriff’s position. Politicians should not be managing anything. The role of the elected politician is to work with other elected politicians on defining vision, policy and budgets.

    1. I’ve never met a law enforcement professional with managerial experience that wasn’t a politician. Funny.

    2. I refuse to have a sheriff that isn’t elected to represent the will of the people and uphold the state and federal constitutions.

  4. Some day, I will meet a hoplophobe who is able to make an argument without lying. “automatic weapons”??? WTF?

  5. To the author, you are an uneducated, hoplophobic fool. Your bias is laughable. The vast overwhelming majority of cops are against gun control because they know it is a) unconstitutional and b) ineffective.

  6. “James Holmes used high capacity automatic weapons”? Your sir, are an idiot. He used a semi automatic rifle. Automatic weapons require a class 3 ATF license and have been banned from the general public since 1986. “Assault rifles or weapons” are only those with a selector that allows it to shoot in burst or fully auto. High capacity? 30 rounds is standard magazine size for the AR family of weapons.

    If you cant even grasp such fundamental basics of firearms you have no business having an opinion at all, as you are a uneducated buffoon on said subject.

  7. What the hell did I just read? No part of that made sense. ‘high capacity automatic weapon magazines’
    Do you think my the author is English second language or something?

  8. Well… Terry Maketa signed my FFL, and has allowed me to manufacturer short barreled rifles, so he’s alright in my book..

  11. Lanza never used an AR you dumb ass. Thats been debunked so many times and yet you idiots refuse to acknowledged that

  12. Dave,
    Don’t let all these gun nut comments get you down.
    Someday, the UN will confiscate all their guns.
    ,dave

    1. Just remember that statement when your standing in front of the newly dug trench. 100,000,000 people have been executed after guns were removed for their protection.

      1. Who has begun confiscating all of our guns? Did I miss something? I do know that Obama is supposed to but he’s running out of time.

        1. Lance in all fairness you have missed quite a bit. Guns are being rounded up in California for “mental illness”. The soviets once used that tactic prior to rounding up 20 million for labor camps. Here in Colorado people have been denied their legal right to their guns because the law prevents returning them to their rightful owner. In DC a man was taken to prison for having a spent shotgun shell. In New Jersey an army vet was sent to jail for 5 years for having a firearm while traveling through the state. It may not be wholesale confiscation like in 1938 Germany, but it is happening.

          1. I am aware of that and agree the law(s) was poorly written and pretty much useless ( which I won’t get into), but I get irked when a group of elected sheriffs assert they have the right to overrule a law (whether dumb or whatever). In reality, it was a stunt to fire up their supporters/voters.

          2. Lance, I understand your statement, but it the responsibility of sheriff’s and all citizens to disobey laws that are not constitutional. Even if the supreme court rules something constitutional, jury nullification allows citizens to take a final stand. Prohibition failed in part due to citizens using jury nullification.

            We should all be so lucky to have sheriff’s that disobey unconstitutional laws.

          3. Citizens and sheriffs cannot interpret the constitution/amendments. I know it sounds simple, but it’s hundreds of years of cans of worms. If 10 people read the 4th Amendment they would come up with 10 different meanings. I agree the upper courts, actually all courts interpret/rule wrongly from time to time (as a result of their personal agendas and warped sociopathic minds), but someone has to do it and that’s their role. I certainly don’t want Sheriff Terry Maketa doing it.

            Regarding the 8th, what’s “cruel and unusual?” That’s been flipped flopped back and forth nonstop.

            The constitution/amendments were written broadly for that very reason. Just like many justices, including dissenting justices in 2008, read the 2nd Amendment (right or wrong) as only stating/meaning/meant for/reading as applying only to “A well regulated militia….” That’s what they thought/ruled.

            As far as nullifications would Rush Limbaugh’s sheeple be right or Nancy Pelosi’s sheeple?

  13. right on cue … the gun nuts ranting about the proper names to call these killing machines.

    2. I’m sure you drive a killing machine every day that is responsible for more deaths every year in this nation than my “killing machines.”

      1. My killing machine wasn’t made for killing. My killing machine has insurance just in case I accidentally kill or injure you. My killing machine has been made safer over the years and by law I am required to wear a seat belt. If I accidentally kill a child with my killing machine – I’d get arrested unlike kids who find a gun and go boom on someone or themselves. Maybe we should all be required to wear bullet proof vests since death by guns are catching up with death by automobiles.

        1. Your killing machine wasn’t made for killing, yet it kills more people than mine does every year in this nation.

          Either mine is more poorly designed than your’s…or people who own guns act more responsibly than people who own cars.

          Tell you what. Lets make this fair. Lets compare how many legally owned cars kill people a year to how many legally owned guns kill people a year.

          1. Nah, it’s useless pointing out facts, numbers, studies to men who love guns more than children

          3. 74 school shootings since Newtown, men who murder/suicide families and far too many so-called “accidental” shootings of children to beleive that load of hooey.

          4. That 74 figure has been thoroughly debunked, even by CNN – a bastion of left wing collectivism. The vast majority of them happened outside of school hours, and typically involved gangs and/or drugs.

            Let me ask you this…

            Should the 100,000,000+ law-abiding gun owners who have never hurt anyone with their legally acquired guns lose their rights and property because of the actions of a criminal or lunatic with a (usually) illegally acquired gun?

            Also, for the record…more children die every year in swimming pools than are shot by guns. Perhaps we should ban pools?

          5. Guns Kill Children

            The overwhelming evidence that pediatricians are right and the NRA is wrong.

            The United States accounts for nearly 75 percent of all children
            murdered in the developed world. Children between the ages of 5 and 14
            in the United States are 17 times more likely to be murdered by firearms than children in other industrialized nations.

            Children from states where firearms are prevalent suffer from significantly higher rates of homicide, even after accounting for poverty, education, and urbanization. A study focusing on youth in North Carolina found that most of these deaths were caused by legally purchased handguns https://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2014/06/gun_deaths_in_children_statistics_show_firearms_endanger_kids_despite_nra.html

          6. My guns have never killed anyone, child, adult or otherwise. I guess they are defective then.

            Let me ask you something.

            Do you have ANY first hand personal experience with firearms? Or are you opinions formed entirely from what you’ve been told by people with an agenda?

          7. My brother killed himself with a gun, my neighbors 9 year old son was killed by her ex-husband, a friend from high school was “accidentally” killed by a gun. When- my son was 10ish, he was visiting new neighbors. When no one answered the phone I walked down there and through the window I saw my kid and her kids and a pile of guns on the table. When I knocked on the door her son was scurrying about to hide the guns.

          8. So in other words, you have absolutely no truly personal experience with guns. You’ve had some negative exposure to guns, and assume that every single one of the 100,000,000+ law-abiding gun owners are like those new neighbors.

            I’m willing to bet you’ve never even tried to understand guns. You’ve probably never held one, and definitely never shot one. And I’ll go out on a limb and you’ve probably never even bothered to watch a competitive sport shooting event.

            Perhaps you expand your horizons and realize that 99.9999% of gun owners are model citizens who are, statistically, more law-abiding than you.

            Being a gun owner is not something that is just for white males. Gun owners transcend the typical demographics of this nation into a superdemographic. Male and female. White, black, Hispanic, Asian, Indian, etc., etc. Straight, gay and bisexual. Married and single. Young, old and middle aged. Rich, poor and middle class. Nearly one third of the people in this nation own guns legally – and there is a massive difference between a legal gun owner and someone who has a gun illegally.

            Are people killed with guns in this nation every day?

            Yes.

            But people are also killed with other things in this nation every day.

            Oh…but guns are different! They’re designed to kill!

            Actually…no. They are designed to use a small explosive charge to propel a metal object (typically brass or lead or a combination of the both) at high speeds. That is what they are designed to do.

            The vast majority of people in this nation who own guns do not use the guns to kill. They use the guns to protect themselves and their families (I, for one, would likely be dead right now if it wasn’t for my Glock that I carry every single day – I have had to use it once in a defensive manner, and I did it without firing the gun), or they use the guns for a mixture of recreational shooting and competitive sport shooting. A smaller amount do use their guns for legal killing – its called hunting, and there are people out there even today who won’t eat meat unless they harvested it.

            For every criminal who commits a crime each year with a gun, there are tens of thousands of law-abiding gun owners in this nation who did not.

            According to a study funded by the CDC following Newtown, every time a criminal successfully commits a crime with a gun…another criminal is deterred from committing a crime because of a gun in the hands of the chosen “victim.”

            Sure, you can put on blinders and look only at the negatives associated with guns while ignoring all the positions. There are people alive today, myself included, because they had a gun and were able to use it to defend their lives. There are people today whose houses weren’t robbed because they had a gun that gave the home invader second thoughts about whether or not the TV was worth their life.

            The long and short of it is this – guns are an inanimate object, completely incapable of taking any action on their own. They are not good or evil by nature – they are a tool. Nothing more, nothing less. It is the good or evil intentions of the person using the tool that we need to be worried about.

            Yes, I can use my gun to end a life. And I would, if that person was threatening the lives of myself or my loved ones.

            But my gun can also save my life and my family’s lives.

            My gun can feed my family.

            My gun can give me pleasure at the range.

            My gun allows me to regularly engage in various sports.

            My gun is far more than a “killing machine” as you so ignorantly put it.

          9. As far as I’m concerned none of you are trustworthy, law abiding or responsible… otherwise we wouldn’t have so many deaths by gun. Just having a gun in a car makes for a more aggressive driver. No one is more law abiding than me. I will never kill anyone or myself on purpose or accidentally with an effing gun. I’ve seen pictures of the open carry men/women – they make me sick.

          10. Police who own private weapons are not trustworthy, law-abiding or responsible?

            Military service members who own private weapons are not trustworthy, law-abiding or responsible?

            Teachers who own private weapons are not trustworthy, law-abiding or responsible?

            Lawyers who own private weapons are not trustworthy, law-abiding or responsible?

            As for “having a gun in a car makes for a more aggressive driver,” please cite your source, which I expect to be a properly peer reviewed scientific study.

            Clearly, you are a fanatic and at this point – this conversation is over. There is absolutely nothing reasonable about you. I’ve been perfectly civil in this thread, and you’ve been flinging mud at me almost non-stop – clearly trying to elicit a response from me that would justify your view of law-abiding gun owners as bloodthirsty killers who eat babies.

            You are the worst kind of anti-rights person – a person with absolutely no first hand experience with guns, yet thinks they know everything about something they’ve never held or used.

          12. Only a handful of those 74 purported school shootings turned out to actually be school shootings. Stop spreading Nanny Bloomberg’s bought and paid for propaganda.

  14. The issue is not whether or not the sheriffs were able to testify before the legislature. The issue is that the governor held meetings with pro gun control groups before signing these bills into law and did not meet with any groups who were against them. The governor had a false view of the amount of support for these bills when he signed them.

    1. I seem to remember Denver Post article at the time, where those opposing gun control crowded the hearing rooms, and majority never got to speak. Also the democratic house and senate majority in Colorado, had their info from Mayor Bloomberg -NYC mayor, so did not need to hear Colorado citizens. And it was laughable when the two recalled, blamed the voting system for not allowing paper ballots in vote, when they had fought the use of same for so long. By the way, Holmes was from Calif, democratic family and background, who emigrated to Colorado. And Sandy Hook shooter killed his mother first to ensure the weapons used, would work. Doubt any background investigation would have made difference in either case, since only thing known about both, WAS AFTER THE FACT, WHEN MEDIA WENT WHERE LAW INFORCEMENT COULD NOT BEFORE. But who needs testimony, when the power grabbers know they are right, and others don’t have the power.

  15. Dave, you are either a moron or disingenuous in your reporting. The law had much more to do about transfers than background checks. It was created to turn law abiding citizens into criminals. The law is so poorly written, many shooting events were cancelled in this state. The law also dictated that a private business could not charge more than $10.00 to do a background check…that is absurd. That law was intentional in keeping FFL dealers from doing LEGAL transfers and an effort to force law abiding citizens to break the law and all of that without even touching on the intrusion of the 2nd amendment.

  16. Wow, just an unbelievable amount of misinformation in this “article”. I guess objective journalist really is dead. How about doing some actual research and reporting facts instead of drinking the liberal koolaid.

      1. Maybe you should read some of the other comments for some of why this article has so much misinformation. I just wonder if David is that stupid or is he just pushing his own personal agenda.

  18. David Perry is one miserable POS:

    “Hickenlooper’s gaffe here happened when agreed to talk to this group of
    self-aggrandizing gunslingers to begin with.”

    This is called journalism??????

  19. To the Author of this: Gun control isn’t about guns…it’s about control,
    Maybe you should as those 85 percent of Colorado residents
    your writing about should listen to what our forefathers said:
    Thomas Jefferson wrote:
    “Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government, but illegal for
    the citizenry” And
    George Washington wrote:
    “A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they
    should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of
    independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would
    include their own government.”
    Any and all regulations pertaining to guns is a infringement on our 2nd
    amendment right.

    1. “Any and all regulations pertaining to guns is a infringement on our 2nd amendment right?”

      Did you know the SCOTUS disagrees? In fact, they said the opposite, most recently in 2008.

      We may disagree but the SCOTUS gets to decide what the constitution and its amendments state and what they meant/mean. You and I are not afforded that right or ability, nor any sheriff.

      In his majority opinion, Justice Scalia made it clear that the US Constitution leaves room for (government) measures to combat handgun violence to include “…….some measures regulating handguns.”

      If you’re not happy with the US Supreme Court, unfortunately, your only alternative is to form a well regulated militia and overrun that court.

      2. You state that forming a militia and overrunning our current government like there is no way it will happen. What many fail to realize is we are closer to another civil war than we have been since the last one ended. From my cold dead hands – literally. I expect to die sometime in the next 10 to 15 years fighting for my freedom from my own government. Very likely with a gun in my hands. Better to die a free man than live as a slave. The failures of the Supreme Court are more about making new law than about correctly interpreting the constitution. There are many examples of this if anyone would bother to pay attention. Our freedoms are being whittled away little by little and the Supreme Court is but one agent of this. Oh sorry I forgot you might need to rip your attention away from American idol or some other useless drivel.

        1. Hmmmm…. Well, that same Court (in the same opinion) (2008) was the court that gave you a right (as a citizen) to bear arms. Before 2008, despite what you or I may believe, we had no such right (if you read their past rulings- applying only to a state right arm it’s militias.

          I’m not making this stuff up. Read case law after 1791 to 1939, then to 2008.

          1. Well I’ve had my rights since I was born, no one including the Supreme Court “gave” them to me. The thing many don’t understand is that our rights are not even granted to us by our constitution. They are our natural rights. They are enumerated in the constitution. If you rely on others to “give” you your rights then you really have none do you? I believe that anyone can try to deprive you of your rights including the Supreme Court. If you choose to let them take your rights then that is your choice. I choose to retain all my rights regardless of what decisions anyone else may try to make regarding them and I will defend them to the death if necessary.

            Those that don’t believe in the absolute statement of the 2nd amendment to the right to keep and bear arms should read the documents that preceded the constitution such as the federalist papers and the original state constitutions. These show the actual intent of the bill of rights which include the second. I’m not going to tell anyone what they should believe, but I at least ask that they educate themselves before supporting things like gun control.

          2. That may be true, but it’s moot. The SCOTUS is the rule of the land and must be followed and respected as the final say. Unfortunately that’s what the US Constitution (Article III) states. Don’t complain to me, but complain to our “Founding Fathers.”

            And again, sheriffs do not get to decide if a law is or is not constitutional.

          3. No, Lance. Natural law is the rule of the land, and it supersedes even the Supreme Court’s ever-changing interpretation of the United States Constitution. Read the Declaration of Independence. That’s the philosophy underpinning our system of government, and it informs the Constitution. Natural law has the final say, and no Supreme Court ruling will ever contravene natural law. Virtually ever political disagreement we currently have stems from the fact that the concept of natural law has been erased from our culture and its institutions. This leaves us to the arbitrary vagaries of 9 lawyers. Which, you know, sucks.

          4. I agree with the understanding that your roster is natural, but you can’t go around sticking it wherever you choose.

          5. And you are correct about the natural rights and the constitution; all I’m saying, like it or not, what the high court says, goes. Their interpretation is what we get like it or not. Have they made bad decisions in the past? Yes, of course. But, I do take issue when a sheriff or group of sheriffs believe they have the authority to deem a passed law unconstitutional and state it won’t be enforce (granted some of it may not be enforceable).

            As I said, right or wrong what the drafters meant, the SCOTUS, and most lower court case law, interpreted the 2nd Amendment pertaining to state rights. The right to bear part and shall not be infringed was said to pertain to “A well regulated militia……”

          6. And before researching the issue, I had no idea of the aforesaid. I had even forgotten about the well regulated militia part as all I ever heard (gun rights people, NRA, media, etc) was “right to bear arms” and “shall not be infringed.” Opponents describe this as the NRA and other groups’ successful “high jacking” of the 2nd Amendment, claiming they fooled American, and the SCOTUS, particularly in DofC v. Heller, 2008. Again, that’s just opinion.

          7. Not quite sure what your point is about the well regulated militia is? To clarify what I mentioned regarding the federalist papers, they leave no doubt that a well regulated militia being necessary for the defense of the nation was a necessary evil. It could be misused by the government against its own citizens if the government were to become tyrannical. That being the case, the people must have the means to prevent government tyranny and as such must have the right to keep and bear arms because of the militia being allowed to exist, not because they were a part of a militia. Recall that the American revolution “the shot heard round the world” actually started because British soldiers were attempting to confiscate guns and ammunition from the colonists. The founding fathers had this foremost in their minds when the 2nd amendment was written and it is no less needed today than it was back then.

          8. OK, sorry about the below rambling……. And it’s rambling, with typos

            I get that, understand that, and respect that. I am not saying the 2nd Amendment says and/or was meant to only apply to militias. I also understand your assertion that “militia members” were “the People” and you’re most likely correct. However, there were and still are many scholars, historians, so-called legal experts, so-and many, many past and present SCOTUS justices, dating back to at least to the late 1800’s, who interpreted,/read as only applying to state powers to form and maintain the 13 militias and those militia members to keep their arms (at home). They apparently did not interpret the mass citizenry as also militia members (Not saying they’re right). I also recall reading about a law mandating every able body military age white (or free) man to maintain arms.

            You mentioned the federalist papers, but there are anti-federalist papers/docs/writings as well (Yes, I’m clueless on those). The latter were fearful of the constitution, and the centralized power that comes along with it, wanting their state’s respective militias not to be disarmed by a central govt as they feared a national army obviously due to British oppression and the ultimate revolutionary war. (This was true on both sides). A national army was what they feared. Anti feds wanted state rights and were fearful of a centralized military, thus they wanted power to keep and arm their militias (arms kept by militia members).

            That debate is never ending. And again, you know way more history than I. Even researching from two different reputable research sources, purported “historical facts” vary greatly depending on the author/source’s perspective.

            Right or wrong the “true meaning” of the 2nd Amendment is an argument that will never end. The opponents and proponents (and judges) have argued about proper coma usage in the late 1700’s, proper grammatical structure, history, early papers, etc. The reality is there is no black and white universal understanding of many, if not all, the Bill of a Rights. It’s impossible to just read it and believe it, particularly the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments. The constitution and its amendments must be interpreted and only the courts can do that, with the SCOTUS having the ultimate say. And they have made bad decisions, but that’s our systems and that’s why they were given that authority.

            The SCOTUS (and many lower courts) read/interpreted (until 2008) (and some dissenting justices still do) as the whole sentence of the 2nd Amendment supporting and applying to the first few words’. In 2008, said Court (Scalia’s majority opinion) reversed numerous prior opinions for the first time declaring the right to bear arms, not just a state rights pertaining to militias. And, he probably was right.

            All I’m saying, more as an argument, many pro and anti gun right people do not understand, right or wrong, that only in 2008 (from 1971 and on) did that Court finally affirm an individual’s right to bear arms, and, it almost didn’t happen. The Court also confirmed in that ruling that government can regulate firearms, so long not a complete ban. I also understand natural/God given rights.

            Regardless, we can fight, picket, or whatever, but the high court has the authority and the right and authority to determine what those minds were thinking and what they wrote means. Ten people can read the amendment word for word and come up with ten different understandings. That’s why sheriffs, especially a lying sheriff, ought not to play the high court. Are the “liberals chipping away” at “God given rights?” Probably (to include me), but rule of law must be followed.

            Before delving in on my own (history and case law) other than what I got in grade school (never mentioned in college courses), I had no recollection of said amendment to mention a well regulated militia, but, only, something to the effect of, “All citizens have a right to bear arms and that shall not be infringed.” I was never aware of the actual legal arguments, case law, the constant argument with the courts, particularly, the Supreme Court.

  20. https://www.coloradonewsday.com/feed/news/58938-woman-who-did-nothing-wrong-has-gun-confiscated-long-delay-getting-it-back.txt

    FORT COLLINS, Colo. — There’s an unusual gun battle playing out in
    communities across Colorado. A Loveland woman whose gun was taken after a
    traffic crash in Fort Collins has been waiting for two months to have the gun
    returned.

    The delay is related to a new gun law that has to do with the transfer of a
    firearm. It turns out, even the police cannot return a gun to its owner without
    approval from the Colorado Bureau of Investigation after a background check
    requested by a licensed gun dealer.

    Sara Warren knows all about the law now. She cleans houses for extra cash and carries a gun for safety. She hasn’t seen her Ruger SR9 handgun since March 26, 2014. “It’s been very, very frustrating,” she said.

    She was on her way to Fort Collins for a job bid, but never made it to the
    house. She was in a car wreck that sent her to Poudre Valley Hospital. That’s
    where a report says a paramedic gave her purse and firearm to security at PVH.

    Fort Collins police interviewed Warren and took her gun pending a toxicology
    report. On April 15, her firearm was authorized for release. Since then, she’s
    been waiting. “I have missed out on work,” she said. “I’ve been calling
    the police station every now and then, asking if they’ve figured out a way to
    give it back to me.”

    Fort Collins Police issued this statement: “Fort Collins Police Services has
    instituted temporary measures and is working to find a permanent solution in
    order to comply with the law.”

    That law now requires a background check by a licensed gun dealer for any
    firearm transfer. Fort Collins Police plans to do Warren’s transfer on
    Wednesday, May 21, 2014. That is two months after her weapon was first seized.

    “This law was passed last July. They should have had this figured out by
    now,” Warren said. Larimer County Sheriff Justin Smith said this is why he and more than four dozen other Colorado Sheriffs are suing the state over the 2013 gun control laws.

    “What happened to Sara is exactly the danger in the way this thing is
    written,” he said.

    But, Sheriff Smith says Larimer County hasn’t had this problem returning
    property because they’re going directly through the Colorado Bureau of
    Investigation. “They told us, send the information to us and we will conduct
    the NICS check.”

    As for why it took Fort Collins police so long to return Warren’s gun to her,
    the department wouldn’t say, only that it was advised by the Fort Collins City
    Attorney on how to enforce this new law. The City Attorney said its advice is
    confidential.

  21. “There were two laws enacted by state lawmakers in 2013, the session after James Holmes used high-capacity automatic assault weapons to murder 12 people in an Aurora theater and wound another 70.”

    Check your facts bro. Holmes didn’t use an automatic weapon. Automatic weapons are classified as machine guns by the BATFE, and subject to all pursuant regulations as laid down in the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986. An automatic M16 that is civilian transferable costs around $20,000.

  22. Gun control: a religion centered on the belief that a 115 lb. woman has the right to a fistfight with her 290 lb. would-be rapist.

      1. pchild you should get back to work. The sentinel needs you to clean the bathroom and empty the trash.

          1. Your right, I am crude and classless, but I call it as I see it. I don’t live in the gun control utopia that you seem to enjoy. Your almost giddy to defend the thoughtless gun control measures our state has put in place.

      2. You’re so right! Banning the manufacturing of new 30 round magazines would totally have prevented that!!!111

  23. I’m just going to say two things about sheriffs: Pat Sullivan and Terry Maketa – they need to build some integrity.

  24. Nice editorial, Dave . . . like the governor and the legislators who passed/signed these bills you show a near complete lack of understanding of the guns you hate (Holmes did not have any “automatic” weapons or an “assault rifle” by definition). But let’s leave that alone for now.

    Put your obvious bias aside and consider whether you would accept the same behavior from a non-D governor that you seem to be fine ignoring when it comes from “your boy.” Signing a controversial bill with Constitutional implications–because a staffer (yet unnamed) said he would. Being oblivious to the clear public outrage over the bills and claiming he had no idea. Deciding to gather some facts about the law—after signing it. There is a lot there which should concern people . . . whether you support the laws or not. But apparently you can’t be intellectually honest enough to cover those points.

    Hickenlooper wasn’t tricked into anything. He did what he always does . . . he pulled out his “aw, shucks–see what a moderate guy I am” schtick to try and sugar coat his frosty relationship with the sheriffs (well earned) and got caught making some pretty idiotic statements/admissions.

  25. What a load. Police chiefs are political appointees, Sheriffs who are voted in all across the US are AGAINST these laws. Gov HIckenlooper is running scared that’s all, the fact that Perry just makes fun of anyone who disagrees with him just goes to show how immature and pathetic he is as a writer.

  26. “Nobody, not one person under the dome, has suggested that the government get busy grabbing guns, limiting access to ammunition, or telling people they can’t protect themselves. Nobody. All of the wringing of hands, hyperbole and outright lies? They’re just political lies.”

    Oh come on the NY and CT laws that were recently passed banned the future sale of semi-automatics with ‘features’ that don’t enhance their lethality and in that very same law prevent the transferring of those grandfathered, that means that when the owner dies the government confiscates the firearm. It is cross generational confiscation. You have had the governor of the state of New York talking about the possibility of doing a forced gun buy back. You have some counties in California that are now banning the possession of grand fathered magazines that are larger than 10 rounds that were grand fathered by the state of California back in the 90’s.

    Also just to let you know those high capacity magazines can also work in Bolt-Action and Pump-Action firearms. They can work in any firearm action type that accepts a detachable magazine

Comments are closed.