First-ever nationwide coalition to fight the "Assault Weapons" ban forms: Coalition Against the Semi-auto Ban announced

As everyone has undoubtedly heard, President Bush has publicly stated his support for reauthorizing the 1994 ban on so-called "Assault Weapons."

We've had a great many contacts from people wanting to do something -- anything they could -- to win this battle. We appreciate, and share, their enthusiasm.

In just a few weeks you will be getting a piece of mail that will require your attention -- we hope you'll respond with the same enthusiasm.

But, in the meantime, we need to prepare for this battle. Since we are planning to take this battle to the most effective level -- to the grassroots, right where the politicians don't want us being active -- we need to get a solid list of activists who will be available to attend events, distribute fliers, and force some members of Colorado's Congressional Delegation to commit to voting against this reauthorization.

If YOU would like to be involved and want to be notified when an activity is planned in your area (we're probably not going to e-mail everyone in Colorado, as we don't want to alert the politicians prior to our visit), please This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

Leave Subject line the same

At the TOP of the body of the message, send full name, mailing address (so we can call you for your area and to verify that you are who you are) and phone number.

Friends, this is a very important battle we are in. And while a rally might feel nice, hitting politicians at local events is a much more effective method of getting their attention.

Again, our message is simple: if you vote for the reauthorization -- or ANY compromise on this issue, regardless of who brokers that compromise -- you will be forever shunned by gun owners. The ribbing Governor Bill Owens took at the 2000 Republican State Convention (where a powerful and otherwise popular first-GOP-governor-in-24 years was almost booed off the stage) is only a sampling of what we will do to the careers of Colorado members of Congress who vote wrong (or work behind the scenes to secure reauthorization).

And again, we're not going to dilute our message: we'll concentrate on the Congressmen and Senators in Colorado who are most vulnerable, i.e. Republicans. We could spend a lot of time putting pressure on DeGette and Udall, but that would be a waste of effort. Let's concentrate our fire on those who need to follow their party platform and vote against ANY gun bans.

Let's play this one smart, and make sure we do our part to undo this vile ban on the very type of firearms that are defending our freedom in other countries.

What you can do:

Repeating the action item -- If YOU would like to be involved, and want to be notified when an activity is planned in your area (we're probably not going to e-mail everyone in Colorado, as we don't want to alert the politicians prior to our visit), This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it :

Leave Subject line the same

At the TOP of the body of the message, send full name, mailing address (so we can call you for your area and to verify that you are who you are) and phone number.

We'll be in contact you as soon as possible.

March 13, 2003 - SB24 and SB25 passed the House today on Second Reading today, which is where most amendments and debate are done. SB25 wasn't changed, but SB24 was.

SB25, the preemption bill, will have a Third reading vote on the House floor on Friday.  Assuming no third reading amendments, it will sent directly to the Governor's desk (the Senate already passed the exact version the House debated today).

Dave Kopel published a sharp paper on SB25, detailing what it does and does not do, at:

http://www.davekopel.org/2A/IB/Limited-Preemption.htm

Concealed Carry

As reported, SB24 sponsor Al White ran his amendment to, among other things, change the expiration on training to 10 years for law enforcement and veterans. That makes it the same as training for the average citizen -- it must have been within the last 10 years.

But the main thing SB24 did, and didn't do, was keep the database until 2007, when it would sunset.

Other amendments were fought off viciously, including our effort to remove the database entirely. State Rep. Kevin Lundberg ran that amendment.  State Rep. Pam Rhodes ran an amendment to lower the fee (from $100 to $50, for a five year permit) and to make former law enforcement go through the exact process the rest of us must endure.

By threatening to run an amendment, State Rep. Mike May forced Governor Owens to admit that DOW's hunter safety training (conducted by what is considered a law enforcment agency, and therefore allowable training under SB24) would satisfy the training requirements.

Rhodes and Lundberg forced the House to make recorded votes on their amendments, which is one of the toughest things to do as a legislator.  Party leadership has a fit, threatening careers and cajoling these "rebels", who's only sin is that they want to allow citizens to practice their God-given rights with as little government interference as possible.

Though these three amendments failed, it forced the other changes to the bill.  We'll post those votes electronically soon, as they serve as great reminders of who is REALLY pro-gun, and who is so afraid to rock the boat that they will oppose gun rights.

In the end, it was the efforts of a small number of House Conservatives that forced some of the changes to SB24. SB24 now allows hunters safety as an accepted form of training, your training does expire as early as a previous version of the bill, and the database sunsets in 2007 (as opposed to never).  Again, NONE of this would have happened without RMGO and the true pro-gun leaders of the legislature.

Notable are the efforts of two freshmen: Kevin Lundberg and Mike May. Both showed an extremely stiff spine, something that distinguishes them from the normal invertebrates who populate the legislature.  If you live in their districts (Lundberg represents parts of Larimer county and a little bit of Weld, while Mike May represents a part of Douglas county), or even if you don't, it is worth dropping a note to them thanking them for their fortitude.

Lundburg's e-mail address is This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it '; document.write( '' ); document.write( addy_text66192 ); document.write( '<\/a>' ); //--> This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it , May's is This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it '; document.write( '' ); document.write( addy_text27894 ); document.write( '<\/a>' ); //--> This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

These three legislators were backed up by Greg Brophy (another freshmen who showed guts), Ted Harvey, Bill Crane, Mark Cloer and, of course, Dave Schultheis, who worked diligently for weeks in advance to force changes in SB24. If we had just a few more of these type of legislators, SB24 would have looked much better and Colorado citizens could look forward to more freedom.

As it is, SB24 isn't much to brag about: it will take years to remove some of the more objectionable provisions of this new law.

SB24 will be heard on Third reading in the House on Friday. Once passed, it will go to the Senate where the House changes must either be accepted (it can "concur") or, failing that, a conference committee must be appointed. Until both chambers have voted on and passed the exact same version, it cannot go to the Governor.

April 1, 2002 -

This week the State Senate passed SB24, Sen. Ken Chlouber's concealed carry bill.

The bill itself passed out of the Senate with 23 votes, 5 more than the required 18 majority.

Since Republicans now control the Senate, and thus decide who is the chairman of the "committee of the whole" Senate for Second Reading, most of the amendments offered by Democrats were ruled as "not fitting under the title."

Understand what is happening here: the Democrats, mostly from Denver, used just this circumstance 2 years ago as a way to run a series of anti-gun amendments to a concealed carry bill. The Democrats then used these recorded votes to attack sitting Republican legislators - especially on the "guns in schools" issue - in the 2000 elections.

Though RMGO had worked to add language to prohibit a statewide database of permit holders, which was successful in the Senate State Affairs Committee, Chlouber joined with hardcore anti-gun Denver Democrat Sen. Ken Gordon to strip that language from

SB24. That means that sheriffs can, and will, enter all permit holders into a statewide database, effectively creating a dangerous persons list, a perfect tool for tyranny.

Sen. Doug Lamborn fought hard to keep the database prohibition language in the bill.  Lamborn used a procedure called an "amendment to the committee of the whole" to force a recorded vote on this issue. 6 Senators voted to prohibit a statewide database of permit holders: Lamborn, Bruce Cairns, Mark Hillman, Andy McElhany, Dave Owen and Senate President John Andrews.  For those keeping score at home, this serves as a list of the stalwarts for gun rights in the State Senate.

We were able to slightly move the training requirement. Sen. Bruce Cairns offered an amendment on Second Reading to change the requirement to have training within the last 5 years: it has now changed to 10 years. Though this amendment passed, this hardly makes SB24 a good bill.

SB24 was assigned by the House Speaker into the Local Government, a committee with no conservatives, where it will be heard on Friday, Feb. 28th at 1:30 pm. This wasn't by accident.

What is wrong with SB24? Here is a short list:

• No database prohibition
• Training requirements - hunter safety not included, and there is a 10 year time limit on training.
• Fee -- $100 plus $30 fingerprint fee plus the required training makes this bill affordable to Ross Perot, but out of reach for many Colorado citizens.
• Safezones - K-12 public schools; any facility that has security personnel and weapons screening devices.
• Fingerprint logging - SB24 requires applicants to submit their fingerprints, which are then forwarded to the FBI and entered into their fingerprint database.
• Existing permits expire early
• Residency requirement - Rather than allow sheriffs to issue permits to non-county residents (which would provide a safety outlet when cities like Denver refuse to issue permits, as they are now threatening), SB24 requires you to apply in your county of residence. It also fails to allow visiting out of state citizens to apply.

What you can do: call your State Representative today at 1-800-811-7647 or 303-866-2904 and urge him/her to either fix SB24 or kill it.

Feb. 21, 2003 - This morning the Senate Appropriations Committee passed SB24 by Sen. Ken Chlouber (R-Leadville) to the full Senate.  Senate Bill 63 by Sen. Doug Lamborn (R-Colo. Springs) was held over at the request of the sponsor for a simple reason: right now, we don’t have the votes to pass it out of the Senate.

Chlouber’s concealed carry bill fraught with problems

However, RMGO worked with several Senators to add language to SB24 (while in the State Affairs Committee) to add an amendment that would prohibit a statewide database of permit holders.  Two other amendments failed: one to get rid of the outrageous requirement in SB24 to have training within the last 5 years; the other to make hunter safety training as the lowest level of training required.

These three issues are incredibly important to gun owners: allowing government bureaucrats to create a statewide database of permit holders is tantamount to another gun owner registration scheme.

There is another issue that is rather large: SB24 clumsily does a dance about private property (page 25, starting at line 17), leaving a gaping hole for attorneys to create new criminal safezones.

There is no need for a concealed carry bill to give private property owners the ability to control their own property, as there is a long history of Colorado law that defines the rights and obligations of private property owners.  What SB24’s language could do is give quasi-governmental entities, like Coors field, the ability to create their own criminal safezone.  This entire provision of SB24 needs to be removed.

Senate Bill 24 has other problems: it creates K-12 public schools as a new criminal safezone, though it does allow parents to carry in their vehicles while picking up their kids; it gathers fingerprints when there is really no need (background checks rarely turn up more with fingerprints); it is expensive ($100 plus fingerprint fees for a 4 year permit, not to mention the cost for required training); and it sunsets existing permits early.

Part of the problem is that Sen. Chlouber is doing everything possible to keep the Sheriff's Association happy.  The last time we checked, the sheriff's association doesn’t have a vote in the Colorado legislature, and if sheriffs as a whole had agreed upon a good concealed carry policy, we wouldn’t need this change in law.  In other words, it is the sheriffs that brought us to this point by not issuing permits -- they shouldn't be setting law, as Chlouber is allowing them to do.

Legislation is like a snowball rolling downhill: it gathers speed but it also gathers junk that it picks up along the way.  After a while, few pay attention to what is inside that snowball, as most only see the surface.  NRA members are often unwitting victims of this principle, reading the headlines of a bill and trusting an organization to give them straight scoop.  They may as well place their trust in junk bonds.

The requirement to have training within the last 5 years is one of those pieces of junk.  For the first 8 years of concealed carry battles (the first concealed carry bill in modern history was run in 1994, when Chlouber and then-State Rep. Drew Clark both ran bills) this requirement was never mentioned, but in 2001 a well-meaning witness to a concealed carry bill let fly a wild idea: Bob Meyer, an Arapahoe County Republican activist and a certified firearms trainer, thought EVERYONE should have refresher courses in firearms use and safety.  Either arrogance (“There are too many stupid people with guns” attitude) or naiveté led him to suggest this new requirement, and now it has become a part of the snowball.

The problem is that once it is in the bill it is difficult to remove.  We’re doing our best to get rid of this requirement, but for now we can only say “Thanks, Bob.”

Why are things so difficult to remove from the bill?  Though we can give clear and convincing arguments for changes we would like to make to Chlouber’s bill, the fact is that logic is not dictating anything – politics is the driving force.

The Governor wants to pass a concealed carry bill, but he wants one so mucked up with concessions to the anti-gun lobby that even Tom Mauser should be happy with it.

The difference is that our side (other than RMGO and GOA) doesn’t push, they only give ground.  SAFE, Ceasefire and the rest of the gun ban group pushes and pushes, and once they get what they want, they push more.  They NEVER settle.  Unfortunately, the NRA always settles, long before the battle even happens.

On top of that factor is that the NRA isn’t representing its members: it is representing the Governor.  On our web page is a picture of NRA State Liasion Maryanne Bradfield talking with a member of the governor’s staff

More updates later.

Preemption passes initial Senate approval

On Wednesday the Senate passed SB25, the preemption bill, by Sen. Jim Dyer.  The 18 Senators who voted for the bill are the minimum to pass it in a 35 member chamber.  All Republicans voted for the bill except Lewis Entz and Ken Arnold.  Democrats voting for the bill were Bob Hagedorn and Jim Isgar.

Preemption means local ordinances on gun issues couldn't be enacted by city councils, county commissioners, or any other such government entities below the state.  This bill would overturn Denver's assault weapons ban, get rid of Boulder's silly new municipal gun controls, nullify Denver's brandishing law, just to name a few.

A quick note: Sen. Ken Arnold signed a 1996 GOA candidate survey, pledging not only to vote for preemption (and Vermont-style concealed carry, which he is now opposing) but also to SPONSOR it.   On Wednesday Arnold voted against the bill.  Obviously that pledge was a lie – though Arnold is term-limited, we will be watching should he try to run for any other offices.

You can view his pledge online (if you have Adobe Acrobat installed) by clicking here.

The full Senate will have a final vote on SB25 next week.

An unidentified Rocky Mountain Gun Owners member, dressed in mufti, displays his RMGO cap in Kabul, Afghanistan.

Nov. 11, 2002 - Tonight (Monday, Nov. 11th) Channel 4 News at 10 p.m. will air a "story" about gun shows and the parts sold there. It is a companion piece to the story that air on Sunday evening about explosives being sold at gun shows.

I was contacted by reporter Rick Salinger last week, and viewed a video tape of a purchase made at a gun show. The part purchased was a selector lever for an M-16 (4 position). Salinger then taped my comments.

For those who are not knowledgeable in this area, it is illegal to own that particular part if you have an AR-15. The ATF claims it proves you are attempting to convert your rifle to select fire (full auto), which is in violation of the 1934 National Firearms Act (NFA, foisted upon gun owners by none other than the National Rifle Association).  However, it is not illegal to sell that part: there are many Title II weapons owners who need replacement parts.

This entire story stems from a gun owner whom the ATF is prosecuting for owning an AR-15 and the M-16 selector group. This gun owner didn't use the weapon in a crime, nor did he attempt to convert the weapon to full auto (at least, that is what we understand). He committed a crime of possession.

When this gun owner and his attorney realized that he needed to prove how easy it was to violate this law, they hired a private investigator to smuggle a hidden camera into a gun show and film the sale of these parts. Presumably the film failed to convince the jury and so the defendant found a reporter to air the story.

According to Salinger at Channel 4, this gun owner is going up the river. Though we do not know the specific sentence, we do know that violations of the NFA are punished severely -- this man could spend the better part of a decade behind bars, all for having the wrong parts.

In our view, federal agents should be pursuing REAL terrorists, not unwitting and law-abiding citizens who run afoul of the 22,000 gun laws in America. When interviewed I defended the sale of the part and sympathized with the ATF's victim on one specific point: even experts can't agree on what is legal and illegal, leading gun owners into a no-win situation.

Salinger admitted (hopefully, he admits it on camera) that the ATF agents had only a loose hold on the legalities of purchasing/owning these kind of parts. As John Ross details in his book "Unintended Consequences" the ATF knows little about the laws they attempt to enforce. If the information about the sale of M-16 selector parts is accurate, the seller did nothing illegal. In fact, if the News 4 story even alludes to illegal activity by the seller we will urge him to sue the channel.

What should alarm gun owners is the tone of this prosecution, and where the ATF could possibly get the revenue to operate this kind of investigation.

This prosecution, and thousands like it across our country, are the direct result of an insidious program called Project Exile.

We have dubbed Project Exile with a more accurate moniker: Project Gestapo (credit goes to KHNC's witty talk show host and great American Mark Call).

Project Gestapo is a private/public partnership designed to do one thing: prosecute ANY firearms violations at the highest level possible and with the most resources at the prosecutor's disposal.

Some gun owners have bought into the Project Gestapo trap, banging the "don't pass new laws, just enforce those we have now." Much of Project Exile is an attitude about gun laws -- that violating these laws cannot be tolerated in any form. But banging that gong is dangerous, since it empowers bureaucrats to launch a witch hunt for gun owners.

To many gun owners (undoubtedly including some of the readers of this diatribe) Project Gestapo is an appeasement to the gun control monster. This attitude -- I don't have that kind of weapon, so I don't care if they make it illegal" is widely prevalent in America's shooting culture, and may even be held by a majority of competitive shooters, who care so deeply about their sport that they are willing to throw a bone to the gun ban crowd in order to protect their specific, cherished method of shooting. Winston Churchill said "An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last."

Why call it Project Gestapo? Simple: its program encourages citizens to stick their nose into their neighbors business and rat on them for "illegal firearms." The secret police of the Nazi regime used these kinds of tactics not only to corner those in disfavor with the state but also to inflame a populace against a particular group in their society.

Where does Project Gestapo get its money? It has numerous sources, including leftist foundations and corporations, but it's most prominent donors will surprise many.

The most alarming sources of Project Gestapo's funding are the NRA and Sarah Brady's gun-grabbing organization. In February of 2000 the NRA's Wayne LaPierre joined James Brady and a bevy of lawmakers at a Denver news conference to unveil the launching of Project Gestapo in Colorado. They showed TV advertisements, billboards and other tools used to get citizens to turn in their neighbors for "illegal guns."

Why would the NRA fund this kind of project? The NRA is terribly sensitive to the media and the perception of politicians. They desperately want to avoid being branded as the radicals on the issue, and so they dabble in projects that bolster their image with these two groups.  LEAA, which is the NRA's shill organization for law enforcement officers, is just one example, while Project Gestapo may be the most damaging example.

If you think you are insulated from this type of case because you don't touch illegal guns, think again. Project Gestapo wants hides hung on the barn, and care little if they only prosecute paperwork violations. That retractable stock you may own, for instance, could be used on a rifle that isn't allowed to have one, making you a target for prosecution. One prominent Denver attorney estimates that Denver's federal bench is using 70% of its time to prosecute "gun crimes." As a gun owner, expect to be vilified.

For more information about Project Gestapo, click here.

You can also see a list of organizations and individuals who have condemned Project Gestapo by clicking here.

RMGO will work tirelessly to strip the funding for Project Gestapo and others like it, but we need your help.

If you aren't a member of Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, you can join by clicking here.

You can also make a simple, anonymous donation from that location.

Jan. 23, 2003 - Yesterday the Senate State Affairs Committee passed SB63, Sen. Doug Lamborn's Vermont-style concealed carry bill. SB63 now goes to Senate Appropriations Committee.

In a bold move, Senator Lamborn (the State Affairs Committee Chairman) took public testimony on both SB63 and Sen. Ken Chlouber's much weaker SB24, but only allowed voting on SB63 (which is the chairman's perogative). His reasoning: 2 ccw bills would split the vote and might kill both bills. SB24 would sit in reserve.

You can see a comparison of the two bills by going to our website at:

Bill comparison

You can also track the progress of all firearms legislation by going to our Billwatch section at:

Billwatch

Lamborn began his testimony by saying that while his bill wasn't perfect, when he was confronted with issues he "erred on the side of freedom for citizens." Lamborn's bill is quite similar to a 1999 bill as well as last year's House Bill 1242 by State Rep. Dave Schultheis. Schultheis is the House sponsor of SB63.

After the laundry list of anti-gun groups testified against Lamborn's bill, another organization testified against the strongest ccw bill ever offered: the Firearms Coalition of Colorado.

Though the FCC claims to be a pro-gun organization, their reasons for opposing a Vermont-style CCW bill were the same reasons as cited by Colorado Ceasefire: there wasn't enough control over citizens in areas like training, background checks, fingerprints, etc.

Len Horner, a board member of FCC, said "I think if you turned everyone lose who wanted to carry a gun, those who believe there will be shootings in the streets might be right."

Why is this important? It illustrates how far to the left many so-called gun groups have moved from a principled position. Even when it became apparent that SB63 was going to pass the committee, and thus be THE CCW bill, these groups still either opposed it or sat silent. The NRA nor CSSA testified in favor of SB63, while both supported Chlouber's bill.

RMGO's Northern Colorado Director Ray Hickman testified in favor of SB63, and warned that to buy into many of the compromises (SB24 makes EVERY compromise we've been fighting to avoid for years) means you accept the anti-gun premises that citizens can't be trusted.

Hickman also warned about the growing issue of entering permit holders into CCIC. For more information on that issue, go to:

CCIC issue

SB63 passed on a vote of 5-1, with Democrat Moe Keller casting the lone vote against the measure. Democrat Sen. Alice Nichol voted for SB63 just as she did for a similar bill in 1999 offered by then-Sen. Marilyn Musgrave and then-State Rep. Scott McKay. The work of these two gun rights stalwarts is still felt in the Capitol.

SB63 is now in line to await a hearing in the Senate Appropriations Committee. Waiting is the operative word, since the main members of that committee also are tasked with cutting this year's state budget.

We'll keep you informed of any changes, but check back with our web page often.

RMGO's Executive Director Dudley Brown will guest host AM1460 KHNC's Johnny Rowland program from 1 pm to 3 pm. Brown will host on Tuesdays and Thursdays until Rowland returns.

Johnny was involved in a motocycle accident, and is undergoing surgery. Your prayers are appreciated.

Comparison of the two concealed carry bills being offered in the 2003 Colorado General Assembly

Jan. 20, 2003 - We've been working on an issue that developed, of all places, in a county that has more per capita permits than any county in Colorado.

Just a few weeks ago RMGO Northern Colorado Coordinator Ray Hickman was contacted by Dell Bean, a former law enforcement officer.

Bean was returning home from vacation when a State Trooper pulled him over for no front license plate. When the Trooper accessed his in-car computer database, Bean came up as a concealed weapons permit holder in CCIC, the Colorado Crime Information Center database.

You can read more about CCIC at:

http://cbi.state.co.us/ccic/default.asp

You can also read a Fort Collins Coloradoan article at:

http://www.coloradoan.com/news/stories/20030118/news/801521.html

To summarize, the CCIC database is used as an "index of wanted and missing persons and property, to identify: people and property involved in crime; members of criminal gangs; stolen property; criminal suspects; criminal methods of operation; reported crime; reported arrests; and to share crime bulletins about major crimes in other states from which suspects may flee to Colorado."

In other words, permit holders -- who have already proven themselves law-abiding citizens -- are lumped in with rapists, murderers, burglars and thugs.  When Hickman was confronted with the information by Bean, RMGO staff began an investigation of this practice.

We have asked a legislator to request from CBI -- which administers the CCIC database -- a list of Sheriffs who are entering permit holders into the database as well as CBI's statutory authority for doing so. To date, the legislator has had no response.

Larimer County Republican Sheriff Jim Alderden began the practice of entering these names in CCIC late last year, ostensibly following the lead of former Boulder County Sheriff George Epp, a Democrat.

Alderden has issued more than 2,000 concealed weapons permits, including a brief period when he issued them for free in response to the 9/11 attacks.

But Alderden clearly has a blind spot. He's obviously more concerned with how he is seen by law enforcement agencies, who are notoriously anti-gun, than his constituents.

Alderden was elected almost entirely on the concealed carry issue when he challenged Republican Sheriff Richard Shockley in a GOP primary. Clearly, it was the gun issue that trounced Shockley.

While there are many law enforcement officers who are supporters of the constitution, they are becoming the exception rather than the rule. The push of law enforcement associations to create stricter gun laws has pushed the average law enforcement officer far to the left of their natural allies, the law-abiding gun owners.

RMGO's Executive Director confronted a Democrat sheriff about the practice of entering permit holders into CCIC, and the sheriff quickly denied any intention of doing so.

The sheriff's reason for not entering permit holders into CCIC? When the idea was floated at a Sheriff's association meeting, the Democrat sheriff quizzed other law enforcement personnel about what they would do if they pulled someone over who was flagged as a permit holder. The Democrat sheriff said he was appalled by the comments of some officers he asked, and didn't want to subject his permit holders to such a humiliating and possibly dangerous situation.

Alderden claims the practice is for simple officer safety, so an officer knows someone is likely armed when they are stopped.

Why would an officer be concerned about a citizen who has taken the time and expense to get that permit in the first place? The unfortunate answer is that law enforcement deals with, largely, the dregs of society on day-in day-out basis. This leads them to treat EVERYONE as a "perp" or perpetrator. "Everyone's a perp" is an extremely common phrase in law enforcement circles.

While the issue of being flagged in a database as a "dangerous person" is concerning, even more troubling is the potential of law enforcement to link that information with other databases.

Imagine Denver Police Department linking CCIC information to license plates.  Citizens should shudder at the chilling effect on our rights this system would have.

But ironically, it isn't coming from Denver. The threat is coming from a sheriff who has been arguably the most pro-gun Sheriff in Colorado.

Just this fall, Alderden issued a dozen permits to Denver County residents.  He came short of announcing that he would issue to any law-abiding Denver resident, likely because of the heat he would have taken from the County Sheriffs of Colorado (CSOC), which is Colorado's mafia for Sheriffs.

For years CSOC has been opposed to concealed carry permits. Now that the tide has shifted against them, and almost every sheriff is issuing permits, CSOC has tried to find ways to limit that authority.  CSOC, which is now run by George Epp and represented in the legislature by Peg Ackerman, is an integral part of gun control efforts in Colorado.

How does this CCIC issue effect concealed carry reform in the legislature?

For years, RMGO has warned legislators and gun owners alike that any concealed carry reform bill had to have a prohibition on statewide databases. We've run amendments to the NRA's concealed carry bills to remove the database they establish in their legislation.

Senate Bill 24, sponsored by Sen. Ken Chlouber (R-Leadville) and Al White (R- Winter Park) and drafted by the NRA, not only encourages Sheriffs to share permit holder information but fails to prohibit using CCIC as a registry of "dangerous persons."

Senate Bill 63 has a specific prohibition against any such database. In SB63, Sheriffs are only allowed to determine validity of a permit with their county maintained list of permit holders.

Some will claim a statewide database is needed to check validity. But both concealed carry bills offered this session (and most in the last 8 years of CCW debate) have been permits issued by a sheriffs department. That means a simple phone call to the issuing sheriff's department will authenticate the permit.

Anti-gunners want a statewide database, because it is the kind of information that is otherwise difficult to acquire. That's why Sarah Brady always insisted on a computer system at the federal level to log Brady checks, and unfortunately, the NRA obliged her. It is these kinds of systems that will be, undoubtedly, the tools to disarm Americans.

What can you do? If you are a Larimer county resident, call Sheriff Alderden's office at 970-498-5100 and urge him to discontinue the practice of lumping concealed weapons permit holders with criminals. If you are permit holder in Larimer, you should demand he remove you from the criminal database immediately.

Some Larimer County Permit Holders are considering filing a lawsuit against the Sheriff for failing to disclose that he would enter your name into the database.

For residents of other counties, standby: we'll post the list of Sheriffs Departments that log you into CCIC as soon as we get them.

Jan. 16, 2003 - SB25 by Sen. Jim Dyer (R-Littleton) would stop cities and counties from passing firearms-related ordinances that are stricter than state law. In legalese, it means that the State of Colorado would "occupy the field of law" in this area.

The problem is that, right now, local governments can and do use the legal status of "home rule" to push the gun control agenda they haven't been able to accomplish at the state legislature. Passing a preemption law would stop them from enacting new gun controls on the local level. However, it would not stop the state from enacting restrictions: our State Constitution is supposed to do that.

The bill passed the Senate Judiciary on Monday on a party line vote, but not before longtime State Patrolman and author of the Colorado Brady Act's "Guilty until proven innocent" provision, Sen. Ken Arnold (R-Westminster), added an amendment onto the bill that dooms open carry in the state.

Arnold's amendment allowed cities to ban the firing of guns within their boundaries (not a big deal, as few would want to violate this provision for any reason other than celebration), and to ban open carry as well. This means any city can pass an ordinance similar to Denver's (and many other municipalities) that would ban openly carrying a firearm, even while in a holster. It would have to be in a container, presumably on their way to a range.

SB25 is still good. It would - "may" would be a more accurate term, since courts will certainly interpret the bill - overturn Denver's and Vail's ban on assault weapons as well as Denver's brandishing law (possibly). But with Arnold's amendment, cities and counties could still ban open carry, a major consideration. It would also force Denver into recognizing a measure passed in the 2000 session, which allows the carrying of weapons in vehicles while traveling.

Preemption, such as written in this bill, is helpful, especially considering Colorado is likely to pass a concealed carry law in this session (more on these in a second Alert).

While both concealed carry bills have some form of preemption, SB25 would make it stronger.

We urge you to call your Senator this week (rumor has it that SB25 will be heard on the Senate floor as early as Friday morning) at 1-888-473-8136 (or 303-866-2316 for metro area callers).

Urge your State Senator to remove the open carry provision of the Arnold amendment and pass SB25.

If you aren't sure of your Senator, or want to find their e-mail address, go to:

http://www.state.co.us/gov_dir/leg_dir/senate/members/

Below is a link to the Denver Police Department's "Spy File" on RMGO Executive Director Dudley Brown.  It is posted here, in its entirety (minus some private information like Drivers License number, birth date, etc) for one reason: to let RMGO members and gun rights advocates see the format in which DPD is collecting the information.

It is sad that we live in a time when a semi-socialist municipality feels it must monitor law-abiding citizens who exercise their First Amendment right to free speech in order to protect their Second Amendment rights.  So much for diversity.

The file is quite mundane, and doesn't have much information until page 5 of the PDF document.

A note: DPD recently contacted Mr. Brown (as forced to by law) to tell him they had additional information.  We will post that information as we receive it.

DPD Spy File on Dudley Brown (in PDF format)

Project Gestapo is a private/public partnership designed to do one thing: prosecute ANY firearms violations at the highest level possible and with the most resources at the prosecutor's disposal.

We have dubbed Project Exile with a more accurate moniker: Project Gestapo (credit goes to KHNC's witty talk show host and great American Mark Call).

NOTE: Project Exile has now changed it's name to "Project Safe Neighborhoods".

Some gun owners have bought into the Project Gestapo trap, banging the "don't pass new laws, just enforce those we have now." Much of Project Exile is an attitude about gun laws -- that violating these laws cannot be tolerated in any form. But banging that gong is dangerous, since it empowers bureaucrats to launch a witch hunt for gun owners.

To many gun owners (undoubtedly including some of the readers of this diatribe) Project Gestapo is an appeasement to the gun control monster. This attitude -- I don't have that kind of weapon, so I don't care if they make it illegal" is widely prevalent in America's shooting culture, and may even be held by a majority of competitive shooters, who care so deeply about their sport that they are willing to throw a bone to the gun ban crowd in order to protect their specific, cherished method of shooting. Winston Churchill said "An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last."

Why call it Project Gestapo? Simple: its program encourages citizens to stick their nose into their neighbors business and rat on them for "illegal firearms." The secret police of the Nazi regime used these kinds of tactics not only to corner those in disfavor with the state but also to inflame a populace against a particular group in their society.

Where does Project Gestapo get its money? It has numerous sources, including leftist foundations and corporations, but it's most prominent donors will surprise many.

The most alarming sources of Project Gestapo's funding are the NRA and Sarah Brady's gun-grabbing organization. In February of 2000 the NRA's Wayne LaPierre joined James Brady and a bevy of lawmakers (including Tom Tancredo, Bill Ritter and Tom Strickland) at a Denver news conference to unveil the launching of Project Gestapo in Colorado. They showed TV advertisements, billboards and other tools used to get citizens to turn in their neighbors for "illegal guns."

Why would the NRA fund this kind of project? The NRA is terribly sensitive to the media and the perception of politicians. They desperately want to avoid being branded as the radicals on the issue, and so they dabble in projects that bolster their image with these two groups.  LEAA, which is the NRA's shill organization for law enforcement officers, is just one example, while Project Gestapo may be the most damaging example.

Colorado's Attorney General, John Suthers, publicly supports the program (when he as the U.S. Attorney).  You can read about that here.

If you think you are insulated from this type of case because you don't touch illegal guns, think again. Project Gestapo wants hides hung on the barn, and care little if they only prosecute paperwork violations. That retractable stock you may own, for instance, could be used on a rifle that isn't allowed to have one, making you a target for prosecution. One prominent Denver attorney estimates that Denver's federal bench is using 70% of its time to prosecute "gun crimes." As a gun owner, expect to be vilified.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Update:

Now that Project Exile has changed it's name to Project Safe Neighborhoods, we're starting to see advertising by the new name.

Traveling the country, and visiting cop shops in even small towns, is a Project Safe Neighborhoods van.  This vehicle is adorned with graphics of a handgun that is locked (making it useless when a burglar breaks into your home), and plastered with advertising for the National Shooting Sports Foundation , an organization which cloaks itself in pro-freedom language but in fact has supported gun control routinely.  This is yet another example.

For more information about Project Gestapo, click here.

RMGO will work tirelessly to strip the funding for Project Gestapo and others like it, but we need your help.

If you aren't a member of Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, you can join by clicking here.

You can also make a simple, anonymous donation from that location.

If you have digital pictures of Project Exile billboards, bus benches, or any kind of ad, you can e-mail them to us by This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

Before we become too ecstatic over widespread Republican election victories, it is worth a quick analysis of Tuesday’s election – with a wary eye cast at both parties.

Colorado Legislature

Contrary to some “gun groups” reporting that Republicans taking control of the Colorado Senate means we have a pro-gun majority, the Senate hasn’t moved sharply to the right.  While Sen. President-elect John Andrews is an incredible improvement over Sen. Stan Matsunaka, Andrews still has a number of squishy GOP senators in his 18 member caucus.  That means that one GOP defector changes the dynamics of any vote (since there are a total of 35 state senators), and empowers the left.  A Democrat Senator today remarked in the Rocky Mountain News that Dem senators would be working hand-in-hand with GOP “moderates” (we call them liberals) to pass reasonable legislation (read: gun control).  Also consider that with a Republican House and Senate, and Governor Gun Control, the legislature is likely to pass a concealed carry bill that all three like.  That means a concealed carry bill that weakens the current law.  More about that later.

The Senate actually lost one conservative when Marilyn Musgrave ran for Congress and her seat was redistricted into another senate seat.  The Senate’s conservative caucus consists of Bruce Cairns (R – Aurora), Doug Lamborn (R – Colo. Springs), John Andrews (R – Centennial), Mark Hillman (R – Burlington), and Jim Dyer (R – Littleton).

The state House saw Republicans lose one seat, splitting the legislature 37-28.  New faces Greg Brophy (R – Wray), Tom Wiens (R – Sedalia) and Michael May (R – Parker) are likely candidates to join the existing solid conservative caucus of Ted Harvey (R – Highlands Ranch), Mark Cloer (R – Colo. Springs), Dave Schultheis (R – Colo. Springs), Pam Rhodes (R – Thornton), Bill Crane (R – Arvada), Don Lee (R – Littleton) and Lauri Clapp (R – Englewood).  Though the jury is still out, these new faces are also candidates to join the House’s real pro-gun group: Ray Rose (R – Montrose), Kevin Lundberg (R – Loveland) and Bob McCluskey (R – Fort Collins).  The loss of longtime stalwart Rep. Mark Paschall (R – Arvada), who was term-limited, will force younger conservatives to step up to the plate and do the dirty work Paschall had been counted upon for.

Colorado Congressional Delegation

Though Republicans enjoyed a major shift in power in Congress, the real story in Colorado is the election of St. Sen. Marilyn Musgrave to Colorado’s 4^th Congressional District.  Musgrave set the standard in the legislature for conservative votes, leading conservatives during her stints in both the State House and State Senate.

Bob Beauprez, now considered the victor in the 7^th Congressional District, is a mixed bag.  Beauprez signed the SAFE gun control ballot initiative in 2000 (the Boulder Daily Camera has a nice interview with him where he proudly supports this insidious gun control scheme), and more importantly, discouraged solid pro-gun candidates from running for office when he served as GOP State Party chairman.  While he clearly will vote better than Mike Feeley, Beauprez will be a questionable vote on virtually every gun issue – including the reauthorization of the assault weapons ban, which will take place in the next 2 years.  Gun owners in the 7^th district should be very cautious of Beauprez.

Conclusions

Why wouldn’t gun owners be excited about passing ANY concealed carry bill, you might ask?  First, understand that virtually every sheriff now issues permits.  With the election of new sheriffs in Jefferson, Adams, Douglas and Arapahoe Counties, even more sheriffs will be issuing permits.  The problem remains Denver – which is the only major county in Colorado that refuses to issue permits.  So, the question remains: should we pass a bill that weakens current law (current law only requires fingerprints and a background check – no mandatory training, no needs requirement, etc, but individual sheriffs place their own requirements on issuing) just so that Denver residents can get a permit?

Our opinion is that any ccw law must be an improvement over existing law – which means the current rights of citizens should not be infringed.

Newly re-elected Gov. Bill Owens, Sen. Ken Chlouber, and the NRA are already banging the gong to pass a bill that has expensive and cumbersome government-mandated training requirements as well as a centralized database of gun owners and criminal safezones (specifically K-12 schools, which is a bald-faced sell-out to the teachers union).  All three of these items weaken current law.

In Congress, there are concerns with having a GOP controlled executive and legislative branch as well.  Much of the “Homeland Defense” legislation, which tramples on the rights of citizens, can be expected to pass easily.  We’ll have to remain hyper vigilant with this issue, as well as the issue that will define our movement for decades to come: the reauthorization of the Feinstein Assault Weapons ban, which must take place by Sept. 2004 or be sunsetted.

In both the State Legislature and Congress, gun owners should remember that our founding fathers created checks and balances – termed “gridlock” now – to deny those who would destroy the fabric of our freedoms.  Put simply, gridlock is our friend.

by Larry Pratt
Executive Director, Gun Owners of America

A killer is on the loose in the Washington area, and once again, gun haters are using the Beltway shootings as an excuse for more gun control.

Ballistic fingerprinting will hardly ever solve a crime, but it will accomplish something else -- a gun registry tied to the owners of the guns.

The latest weapon in the gun haters' arsenal is the registration of firearms. Specifically, they want to register the unique "ballistic fingerprint" that each firearm leaves on a bullet or cartridge case after it is fired, and trace it back to the original buyer of the gun.

Ballistic fingerprinting will not work for a number of reasons. Probably foremost is that crooks do not use valid identification to buy guns in stores. That means the evidence chain will rarely connect back to the crook.

Second, the signature changes with successive firings of the gun. The changes are most pronounced when the gun is new. Moreover, it is not difficult to intentionally disfigure the lands and grooves in the barrel to change the signature.

Third, barrels and firing pins can be replaced, creating a new signature that does not exist in anybody's database.

Gun owners oppose registration because governments have a habit of changing the rules at some future date and using the database of gun owners to demand surrender of the newly banned guns. This is what happened in New York City.

For 25 years, all rifles and shotguns were registered. The city's politicians insisted that crime fighting, not confiscation, was the goal. Then the law was changed, and many of the previously legal guns were on the prohibited list. Those that were not surrendered were confiscated during raids on owners' homes using registration lists.

Opposition to registration is hardly the paranoia that gun control supporters want people to believe. Often these same gun control advocates are (rightly) suspicious of the government when Fourth Amendment rights, rather than Second Amendment rights, are involved.

Many supporters of gun control (rightly) opposed the Patriot Act and Attorney General John Ashcroft's inability to limit his actions within constitutional boundaries. They do not call themselves paranoid when opposing the Patriot Act, which authorizes massive invasions of personal privacy. However, they call gun owners paranoid for opposing registration.

Some proponents of keeping a registry of bullet signatures insist that this is not gun control, just a crime tool. If you study the debates over every piece of gun control legislation in the past, you will find the same argument being made.

Gun control has always been advanced as just crime control. But gun control costs lives, it does not save them.

2003 Colorado Legislature

Gun Rights Voting Record

House of Representatives

Senate

Printable PDF

Ever year in the legislature there are defining moments.  A vote takes place, usually on an amendment to a bill, that shows constituents (those few savvy enough to know how to dig out those votes) where a legislator stands on a given issue.

The following are what RMGO considers the defining moments for gun rights in the 2003 General Assembly.  Because not every vote taken on a supposed "gun" bill is important, we don't list all of those votes.  We list the votes where a line is drawn in the sand, and politicians must sweat a bit to decide how to vote.

Rather than spend countless hours searching for those important votes, we have distilled them down to these two tables.

The keys to the votes follow the vote tables.  Permission is granted to copy and distribute this guide with full credits to RMGO.

House Key:

Senate Key:

SB24 Database Removal – Lamborn Amendment to the Committee of the Whole to prohibit Statewide Database of gun owners (2/24/03)

SB25 Preemption – Final vote (2/24/03)