2004 News Alerts from RMGO

DPS carry letter

Meyers Court Decision

DISTRICT COURT

CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, COLORADO

▲COURT USE ONLY▲

Case Number:

03 CV 3809

Courtroom 18

Plaintiffs:

CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, a home rule municipal corporation of the State of Colorado; and WELLINGTON E. WEBB, as Mayor of the City and County of Denver,

Defendants:

STATE OF COLORADO, and BILL OWENS, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Colorado.

ORDER ON CROSS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

In the 2003 legislative session, the General Assembly passed Senate Bills 24 and 25. Both bills were signed into law by Governor Owens on March 18, 2003. The bills contained sweeping legislative declarations that identify control of firearms as a state interest and seek to preempt conflicting local laws. Senate Bill 24 addresses primarily a uniform system for issuing permits for carrying concealed handguns, while Senate Bill 25 addresses other aspects of firearms regulation.

The City and County of Denver is a home rule city created and organized under Article XX, Section 6 of the Colorado Constitution (the "home rule amendment"). Under the home rule amendment, a home rule municipality has the supreme power to legislate in matters of local concern. Historically, Denver has had a range of ordinances controlling various aspects of the possession, use and sale of firearms in the city.

In this action, Denver seeks a declaratory judgment that specified Denver ordinances are not preempted by state law and, alternatively, that Senate Bill 24 and 25 are unconstitutional under the home rule amendment to the extent that they seek to preempt local laws. The City seeks an injunction against state "enforcement" of Senate Bills 24 and 25 and asks that the Court enjoin the state from interfering with Denver's enforcement of its ordinances.

After the State's motion to dismiss for lack of standing was denied, the case was set for trial. Prior to the trial date, the parties reached agreement that there are no disputed issues of material fact and that the case could be decided as a matter of law on cross motions for summary judgment. Therefore, the trial date was vacated, and each party filed a motion for summary judgment. Those motions have been fully briefed, and oral argument was heard on September 24, 2004. As directed at oral argument, the parties have submitted supplemental filings specifying the relief they request. The City has also tendered to the Court copies of certain amended ordinances whⁱch had not been provided earlier.

The City's complaint addressed 15 specific ordinances and two regulations. Complaint, ¶ 7. One of those ordinances has since been repealed, and another has been amended. The State now concedes that nine ordinances and the two regulations do not conflict with state law.[1] Although they overlap to some extent, the retraining ordinances can be divided into five topical categories: (1) concealed handguns/firearms in vehicles; (2) open carrying of firearms; (3) assault weapons/Saturday night specials: (4) safe storage juveniles; and (5) firearms in city parks. In Summary, the State argues that all of the City’s ordinances in these areas are preempted by the States’s interest and participation in the field of firearms regulation. The City's position is that each ordinance must be examined separately and that the disputed ordinances either do not conflict with state law or address matters of purely local concern.

[1] The ordinances conceded by the State either in briefing or at oral argument are as follows:

§14-92, Firearms in Vehicles. Presumption of Possession

§38-11 7(c), Display and Flourishing of Weapons

§38-121, Firing and Discharge of Firearms

§38-122(1), Restrictions on Display of Firearms in Store Windows

§38-123, Identification and Records of Weapons Sales

§38-124, Sale of Weapons to Intoxicated Persons

§38-125, Reports of Gun Sales (repealed)

§42-137, Security Guard Prohibited from Carrying Firearms Unless Licensed

§59-80(6)(c)( I ). Sale of Firearms in Residential Zone Districts (conceded at hearing)

Manager of Aviation's Rules 10.33, 20.09, 20.10, Firearms on Airport Property (conceded at hearing)

Career Service Rules 15-110 and 16-50. Possession of Firearms by Employees

I agree with the City that the ordinances must be examined and analyzed individually. They address disparate topics which require distinct analysis under the home rule jurisprudence of Colorado. For example, the weighing of the factors to be considered in determining whether a matter is of purely local, purely state or mixed concern is quite different for ordinances controlling firearms in automobiles as compared to ordinances prohibiting firearms in City-owned parks. Therefore, I will address and state my conclusions with regard to each discrete area separately.

HOME RULE PRINCIPLES

Article XX, Section 6 of the Colorado Constitution grants home rule status to municipalities opting to adopt home-rule charters.

It is the intention of this article to grant and confirm to the people of all municipalities coming within its provisions the full right of self-government in both local and municipal matters and the enumeration herein of certain powers shall not be construed to deny such cities and towns, and to the people thereof, any right or power essential or proper to the full exercise of such right.

The statutes of the state of Colorado, so far as applicable, shall continue to apply to such cities and towns, except insofar as superseded by the charters of such cities and towns or by ordinance passed pursuant to such charters.

Article XX, Section 6, Colo. Const.

The home rule amendment, added to the Constitution in 1912, abrogated Dillon's Rule which stated that municipal corporations owe their origin to and derive their powers and rights from the legislature. The effect of the amendment was to grant home rule municipalities "every power theretofore possessed by the legislature to authorize municipalities to function in local and municipal affairs." City and County of Denver v. State, 788 P.2d 764, 767 (Colo. 1990) (quoting Four-County Metro Capital Improvement Dist v Board of County Comm'rs. 369 P.2d 67,72 (Colo. 1962)). Although the legislature continues to exercise supreme authority over matters of statewide concern. a home rule city is not inferior to the General Assembly with respect to local matters.

In determining the relative authority between the General Assembly and home rule municipalities there are three broad categories of regulatory matters to consider: 1) matters of local concern; 2) matters of statewide concern; and 3) matters of mixed local and statewide concern. Id.; Trinen y. City and County of Denver, 53 P.3d 754, 758-759 (Colo. App. 2002); City of Commerce City v State, 40 P.3d127 3, 1279-1280 (Colo. 2002); City and County of Denver v. Qwest Cor p., 18 P.3d 748, 754 (Colo. 2001). These categories are described in more detail below.

In matters of local concern, a home rule municipality has plenary authority. Qwest Cor_^p., 18 P.³ )d at 754. While the state may legislate in areas of local concern, see City and County of Denver v. State, 788 P.2d at 767 (Colo. 1990), home rule ordinances or regulations control in the event of a conflict with state legislation. Id.; City of Commerce City, 40 P.3d at 1279; City and County of Denver y. State, 788 P.2d at 767. By contrast, the General Assembly has exclusive authority to legislate in areas of statewide concern. That is, the state legislature may adopt legislation, and home rule municipalities are without power to act unless authorized by the constitution or by state law. See, Trinen, 53 P.3d at 758; Qwest Corps., 18 P.3d at 754; City and County of Denver v. State, 788 P.2d at 767. If the matter is one of mixed local and statewide concern, home rule provisions and state statutes may coexist when the measures can be harmonized. In the event of a conflict, however, the state statute supersedes the home rule provision. Trinen, 53 P.3d at 758; Qwest Corp., 18 P.3d at 754, Town of Telluride v. Lot Thirty-Four Venture LLC, 3 P.3d 30, 37 (Colo. 2000); City and County of Denver v. State, 788 P.2d at 767. Even when a home rule city has considerable local interests at stake, a particular issue may be characterized as one of mixed concern for purposes of determining a home rule municipality's authority when sufficient state interests also are implicated. Town of Telluride, 3 P.3d at 37; but see J. Coats dissent in City of Northglenn v Ibarra, 62 P.3d 151,165 (Colo. 2003)(the General Assembly cannot make a matter of local concern any less so by imposing its own regulatory scheme, even where it has legitimate statewide concerns).

Therefore, determining whether the state laws enacted by Senate Bills 24 and 25 preempt the disputed Denver ordinances depends on whether they address matters of local, statewide, or mixed local and statewide concern. The Colorado Supreme Court has repeatedly announced certain tests to determine whether a matter is local, state or mixed. These categories, however, are not mutually exclusive. They do not provide perfectly distinct descriptions of competing governmental interests. They often merge imperceptibly, City and County of Denver v State, 788 P.2d at 767, thereby making the tests for identifying the category imprecise and easier to state than to apply. The tests include:

Totality of the Circumstances

To determine whether a state or home rule municipality's rules govern the Court must consider the totality of the circumstances to make its conclusion that a particular subject matter is one of local, statewide, or mixed concern. City of Commerce City, 40 P.3d at 1279-1280; Town of Telluride, 3 P.3d at 37. This analysis involves consideration of both fact and policy, Qwest Corp., 18 P.3d at 754-755, directed toward weighing the respective state and local interests implicated by law. Town of Telluride, 3 P.3d at 37. The determination is ad hoc, taking into consideration the facts of each case. City and County of Denver v. State, 788 P.2d at 767-768.

Legislative Declarations

The General Assembly's declaration that an issue is a matter of statewide or local concern is not conclusive, but should be afforded deference in recognition of the legislature's authority to declare public policy of the state in matters of statewide concern. Town of Telluride, 3 P.3d at 37 (citing City and County of Denver v. State, 788 P.2d at 768 n. 6 (noting that General Assembly's declaration is not binding)). It is not up to the courts to make or weigh policies. Id. at 38. Thus, when sufficient state interests are implicated, an issue that also implicates local interests is still a matter of mixed local and statewide concern. Id.

Key Factors

Finally, in determining whether a state interest is sufficient to justify home rule preemption, a variety of factors should be considered. These factors are intended to assist the Court in measuring the importance of the state interests against the importance of the local interests in order to make an ad hoc decision as to which law should prevail. They include: 1) the need for statewide uniformity of regulation; 2) the impact of the measure on individuals living outside the municipality (extraterritorial impact); 3) historical considerations concerning whether the subject matter is one traditionally governed by state or local government; 4) whether the Colorado Constitution specifically commits the particular matter to state or local regulation; and 5) whether there is a need for governmental cooperation to facilitate the laws concerning the subject matter in question. City of Northglenn, 62 P.3d at 156; City of Commerce City, 40 P.3d at 1280; City and County of Denver v Qwest Corp ,18 P.3d at 754-55; Town of Telluride, 3 P.3d at 37; City and County of Denver v. State, 788 P.2d at 768.

The parties agree that regulation of firearms is generally a matter of mixed concern. See Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' Motion at p. 2; Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment at pp. 5-6. In Trinen v. City and County of Denver, 53 P.3d 754 (Colo. App. 2002), which upheld as constitutional a former version of the City's ordinance concerning firearms in vehicles, the parties agreed that the matter was of mixed local and state concern. However, the City argues in this case that the specific ordinances at issue here address matters of strictly local concern where the City's interests should outweigh the insubstantial state interests shown. This highlights the need to analyze each separate ordinance individually.

PREEMPTION PRINCIPLES

If a matter is of mixed concern, the next inquiry is whether the local and state laws are in conflict, or whether they can be read harmoniously to effectuate the interests of both governments. See Trinen, 53 P.3d at 758. Conflicts between local and state laws may arise either expressly or by mere implication. Express conflicts exist when an ordinance or local regulation authorizes what state legislation forbids or forbids what state legislation authorizes. City of Commerce City, 40 P.3d at 1284. An implied conflict arises when a local ordinance and a state law prevent each other from effectuating their purposes without necessarily legislating on the sane subject matter. See e.g., City of Northglenn, 62 P.3d at 156; Town of Telluride, 3 P.3d at 37. Should a home rule ordinance or regulation conflict with state law in an area of mixed concern, the local law will be preempted.

Although state laws prevail in the event of a conflict in an area of mixed concern, courts should first look to determine whether the ordinance and state law can coexist. Understanding that laws must be read to accomplish the purpose for which they were enacted, courts must

examine the context of the legislation to determine whether the local and state laws can be harmonized in an area of mixed local and statewide concern. This includes, but is not limited to, examining the title of the specific statute, the language of its provisions and its statement of purpose. Trinen, 53 P.3d at 759.

It is noted that the State's interest in regulation of firearms is based in part on a desire to protect the constitutional right of a person to keep and bear arms. See C.R.S. §§ 18-12-201(e), 29-11.7- 101(a)(b) (2003). This right, however, is not absolute and does not automatically preempt firearm regulation. Contrary to the declarations in Senate Bill 25, the right to bear arms has not been held by the courts to be a fundamental right. See Trinen, 53 P.3d at 757 (citing People v. Young, 859 P.2d 814 (Colo. 1993)). Moreover, the right is specifically limited where the constitutional provision states that "nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons." See Art. ii, § 13, Colo. Const. Firearm regulations promulgated by the State or a local municipality under the home rule amendment may coexist with the constitutional right to keep and bear arms so long as such regulations are a reasonable exercise of the governments' police powers. Fee, e.g., Robertson v. City and County of Denver, 874 P. 2d 325 (Colo. 1994) (upholding Denver's assault weapons ban); Trine n, 53 P. 3d 754; People v. Pflugbeil, 834 P.2d 843 (Colo. App. 1992) (order depriving mental patient of right to weapons).

Recognizing these general principles, I now turn to the five subject areas remaining in dispute.

CONCEALED HANDGUNS/FIREARMS IN VEHICLES

Senate Bill 24 establishes statewide uniform standards for issuance of permits for the carrying of concealed handguns. C.R.S. § 18-12-201 et. seq. (2003) The City does not challenge that aspect of the bill and has amended its ordinances accordingly. However, the bill also addresses where a permit holder may carry a concealed handgun and when handguns may be carried without a permit. The City contends that its ordinances on these topics should not be preempted. There are two subsets of issues in this category, but they must be treated together since the statutes and ordinances are intertwined: (1) where concealed handguns may be carried with a permit, and (2) having firearms in automobiles without a permit.

In general, both state law and Denver's ordinances prohibit carrying a concealed handgun without a permit unless the gun is in an automobile or being used for hunting. However, the differences in the details between state and local laws apparently give rise to the dispute between the parties in this area.

Section 38-117(a) of the Denver Revised Municipal Code ("DRMC") provides:

It shall be unlawful for any person, except a law enforcement officer in the performance of duty, to wear under their clothes, or concealed about their person any dangerous or deadly weapon, including, but not by way of limitation, any pistol, revolver, rifle, shotgun. . . . or other dangerous or deadly weapon.

As amended on July 12, 2004, subsection (f) of § 38-117 provides that it is not an offense if the person carrying the concealed weapon holds a valid permit and is carrying the handgun in compliance with state or local law. Subsection (f) also provides that it is not an offense if:

The person is carrying the weapon concealed within a private automobile or other private means of conveyance, for hunting or for lawful protection of such person's or another person's person or property, while traveling into or through the city to or from another jurisdiction, regardless of the number of times the person stops in the city or the other jurisdiction, and the weapon is not an explosive device, incendiary^, device. or a bomb.

DRMC §38-118 supplies affirmative defenses to charges brought under §38-117(a) if the weapon is carried by a person:

In a private automobile or other private means of conveyance for lawful protection of their or another's person or property, when there is a direct and immediate threat thereto, while traveling away from the area of their residence or business,

(2) In their own dwelling, or place of business, or on property owned or under their control at the time of the act of carrying such weapon....

As enacted by Senate Bill 24, C.R.S. § 18-12-204(2)(a) (2003) states that "a permittee, in compliance with the terms of a permit, may cant' a concealed handgun as allowed by state law." C.R.S. § 18-12-204(3)(a) provides that:

A person who may lawfully possess a handgun may carry a handgun under the following circumstances without obtaining a handgun permit and the handgun shall not be considered concealed:

(I) The handgun is in the possession of a person who is in a private automobile or in some other private means of conveyance and who carries the handgun for a legal use, including self defense, or

(II) The handgun is in the possession of a person who is legally engaged III hunting activities within the state.

In C.R.S. § 18-12-214(1)(a) (2003), also added by Senate Bill 24, state law authorizes a person with a permit to carry a concealed handgun in "all areas of the state, except as specifically limited ill this section . . . a local government does not have authority to adopt or enforce an ordinance or resolution that would conflict with any provision of this part 2." In subsection (2), that statute provides that a permit for a concealed handgun does not authorize the permittee to carry the concealed handgun into a place where the carrying of firearms is prohibited by federal law, on public school property or in a public building with security personnel and electronic weapons screening devices in place and operational. Otherwise, state law, like the Denver ordinance, prohibits the carrying of a concealed handgun without a permit, with few exceptions. C.R.S. § 18-12-105(1) and (2) (2003).

Generally, the parties agree that the matter of concealed carry of firearms is one of mixed focal and state concern. See Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment at p. 2; Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment at pp. 5-6. As stated above, in a mixed area, a local ordinance can exist alongside a state statute as long as there is no conflict between them. The City argues that there is no conflict between its ordinances, as amended and the State statutes on concealed carrying. The State responds that the City's affirmative defense of self-defense is more restrictive than the State statute because it requires that the person with the gun be under a "direct and immediate threat." The State also argues that the City's ordinance, even as amended, allows for a future conflict where it states that a permittee has not committed an offense as long as he or she is "carrying a handgun in conformance with any applicable state or local law." DRMC §38-117(t)(1). The State postulates that the City in the future may pass a local law prohibiting permittees from carrying concealed weapons into City buildings even where there are no security personnel or metal detectors.

I agree with the State in part. The State's interest in the concealed carry of firearms is significant. The State has historically regulated the lawful carry of concealed weapons, see C.R.S. § 18-12-105, and through Senate Bill 24 (C.R.S. §§ 18-12-201 et. seq.), it stepped in to provide a comprehensive permitting scheme for the lawful possession of concealed handguns throughout Colorado. The city effectively acquiesced to the State's authority in this area by its decision not to challenge the state's imposition of uniform permitting standards and by its repeal or modification of ordinances that expressly conflicted with the new state law. Thus, state law now provides the overriding authority concerning concealed carry of handguns and establishes a degree of uniformity for obtaining permits and identifying those instances when a permit is not required. This legislation enables a permit holder to have consistent expectations about the lawful possession of concealed handguns when present anywhere in the state. Accord, City of Commerce City_ 40 P .3d at 1281 (state's baseline regulations for automated ticketing procedures provided needed degree of uniformity that allowed citizens to develop basic expectations about how they will be ticketed). This appears to be the ultimate purpose of the permitting scheme and Senate Bill 24.

In this context, the City's argument that §38-1 17(f) should survive because it seeks to prohibit carrying a concealed weapon without a permit only in vehicles used strictly for local travel is unavailing. At argument, the City's counsel confessed that such a restriction presents a

virtually insurmountable enforcement problem anyway. Moreover, C.R.S. § 18-12-105.6 was amended by Senate Bill 25 to permit carrying a weapon in a private automobile for hunting or self defense "within a jurisdiction." This is in direct conflict with §38-11 7(f)(2) which would prohibit carrying a weapon in an automobile while traveling entirely within the City and County of Denver.

Given the State's detailed regulatory scheme for concealed carry of handguns, I find and conclude that the portion of DRMC 38-117(f)(2) which reads "while traveling into or through the city to or from another jurisdiction, regardless of the number of times the person stops in the city or the other jurisdiction" is in conflict with state law and is preempted by state law. Further, I find that DRMC §38-11 8(a)(1) is in conflict with state law where it includes the phrase "when there is a direct and immediate threat thereto." In all other respects, the City's ordinances, as amended, do not conflict with state law in this area and may coexist with state law.

I reject the State's argument that including ^"local law'' in DRMC §38-11 7(f) creates a conflict with state law. The potential that the City might, sometime in the future, pass a local law in conflict with state statutes is not a reason to invalidate the ordinance now. A local law passed in the future may be read to harmonize with the state regulatory scheme. Any specific local law will need to be evaluated in context if and when it is enacted in the future.

The other conflict pointed out by the State is that state law allows guns carried lawfully in automobiles to be loaded or unloaded whereas the city ordinances require that they be unloaded except when carried for self-defense. Compare C.R.S. §§ 18-12-204 and 214 with DMRC §38-118(b) (3) and (4). However, the cited ordinance applies to open carry of firearms, not concealed carry without a permit. Since 1 conclude below that regulation of open carry is a matter of local concern, that ordinance is not preempted by the state's concealed carry statutes.

OPEN CARRYING OF FIREARMS

Section 38-117(b) of the Denver Revised Municipal Code makes it unlawful for any person "to carry, use or wear any dangerous or deadly weapon, including, but not by way of limitation, any pistol, revolver, rifle, shotgun . . . or any other dangerous or deadly weapon." It is not an offense if the person has a permit and is carrying a concealed handgun or if the person is carrying the weapon in a private automobile for hunting or self defense. Section 38-117(f)(1) and (2). Affirmative defenses to a charge of openly carrying a firearm are listed in §38-118(a) and (b) and include carrying the weapon in a person's own dwelling, place of business or own property, carrying the weapon in defense of home, person or property when there is a direct and immediate threat, for use on a hunting trip or target shooting, transportation as a collector or licensed dealer, and moving personal property from an old residence to a new residence.

State law contains no restriction on the open carrying of firearms, nor does state law expressly permit the open carrying of firearms. In Senate Bill 25, the legislature enacted C.R.S. §29-11.7-103 (2003) which purports to be a broad preemption of all local gun laws which are more restrictive than state law:

Regulation -- type of firearm -- prohibited. A local government may not enact an ordinance, regulation, or other law that prohibits the sale. purchase, or possession of a firearm that a person may lawfully sell, purchase, or possess under state or federal law. Any such ordinance, regulation, or other law enacted by a local government prior to the effective date of this section is void and unenforceable.

Also included in Senate Bill 25 was a provision stating that a local government may enact an ordinance prohibiting the open carrying of a firearm in a building or specific area as long as signs are posted at the public entrances to the building or specific area. C.R.S. §29-11,7-104 (2003).

The City argues that its ordinance regulates open carrying of firearms but does not prohibit it and is therefore not in conflict with state law. Alternatively, the City argues that open carrying of firearms is a matter of purely local concern in that the unique circumstances of Denver make its local interests far outweigh any state interest in allowing open carrying of guns.

The State argues that the open carrying of firearms is a mixed state and local issue, that the State has preempted the field by enacting C.R.S. §29-11.7-103 and that the City has the option of protecting its local interests by posting signs as allowed in C.R.S. §29-11.7-104.

I reject the City's argument on statutory construction. Although the legislative history lends some support to the position, the plain language of C.R.S. §29-11.7-103 is clear and unambiguous. Under these circumstances, a court should not resort to legislative history. Town of Telluride, 3 P.3d at 37. To hold that the ordinance only regulates the open carrying of firearms when on its face, it prohibits such open carrying except in certain limited circumstances, would be an unnatural construction of both the statute and the ordinance.

However, I agree with the City's argument that open carrying is a matter of purely local concern, at least insofar as Denver is concerned. Denver is by far the most densely populated area of Colorado. See Appendix B to Plaintiffs' Brief in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment Denver also suffers rates of violent crime far in excess of statewide averages. Id., Appendix C. These unique factors predominate over any need for statewide uniformity or any concern about extraterritorial impact. Uniformity in itself is no virtue, Denver v. State, at 769, and uniformity in this area seems to have diminished value due to the wide diversity of localities included in Colorado. As plaintiffs stated in their opening brief. "Simply put, a bullet fired in Denver--whether maliciously by a criminal or negligently by a law-abiding citizen is more likely to hit something or somebody than a bullet fired in rural Colorado."

Unlike the legislation for concealed carry, Senate Bill 25 fails to set forth a comprehensive regulatory scheme that serves as uniform authority for open carry of firearms. Also, unlike transportation of concealed weapons in automobiles, it should be relatively simple for a gun owner to recall that he or she may not carry a sidearm openly in downtown Denver as is possible in rural Colorado. History is also on the side of the local ordinance. Since 1973, Denver has regulated the open carrying of firearms in public. The State has been silent on the topic until Senate Bill 25. The Colorado Constitution, while protecting the right to bear arms, does not specifically commit regulation of open carrying of firearms to either state or local government. Finally, there is no apparent need for governmental cooperation to facilitate laws in this area. City of Northglenn, 62 P.3d at 156. Based on the totality of the circumstances, I conclude that the State's interest in allowing the general open carry of firearms is insubstantial and is far outweighed by Denver's local interest in regulating firearms more strictly in an urbanized area. Where the State's interest is insubstantial, a matter may be deemed one of exclusively local concern for purposes of home rule analysis. City and County of Denver v. State, 788 P.2d at 771.

I reach this conclusion despite the strong declarations of statewide interest in regulating firearms provided in Senate Bill 25. See C.R.S. 29-11.7-101 (2003). While such declarations should be afforded deference in recognition of the legislature's authority to declare public policy, they are not binding. Without more, declarations of the General Assembly do not clearly establish the significance of the State's interest in regulating open carry of firearms. Relying on the declarations alone to demonstrate the statewide interest would render the home rule amendment meaningless The horse rule amendment snakes home rule municipalities superior to the General Assembly with respect to local matters. For this constitutional scheme to have any vitality, the General Assembly must do more than simply declare an interest in a regulatory matter. It must also demonstrate its interest through actual legislation related to that subject matter. Otherwise home rule control of what has traditionally been a local matter could be usurped by the General Assembly without any showing that its interests are sufficiently significant to move the issue from one of local concern to one of mixed or statewide concern. That is, the State would merely have to declare an interest in a subject matter without actually legislating within that area of interest to render local control powerless. Such a result would nullify the purpose and intent of the home rule amendment.

For the reasons stated above, I find the State has failed to demonstrate a significant interest in requiring every city and town to allow open carry of firearms. Thus, I conclude that the City has proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that C.R.S. §29-11.7-103, insofar as the state relies on it to preempt the ordinances at issue here, is an unconstitutional infringement on the home rule powers of the City and County of Denver as guaranteed by Article XX, § 6 of the Colorado Constitution

ASSAULT WEAPONS/ SATURDAY NIGHT SPECIALS

Denver ordinances make it unlawful to possess or sell certain types of weapons. DRMC §38-130 outlaws "assault weapons" as defined in the ordinance. Specifically subsection (e) of the ordinance states: "It shall be unlawful to carry, store, keep, manufacture, sell or otherwise possess within the City and County of Denver a weapon or weapons defined herein as assault weapons. . . ." There are exceptions for governmental agencies and movie props, and the ordinance provides an affirmative defense for nonresidents transporting an assault weapon through the city or by persons who have a permit for the assault weapon pursuant to the ordinance.

Subsection (c) of DRMC §38-122 makes it unlawful for dealers to "sell, rent, exchange or deliver any handgun . . . knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that the basic structural components . . ." of the handgun make it what is known as a "Saturday night special."

The only state law restriction on possessing or selling certain types of firearms prohibits the sale or possession of machine guns, short shotguns and short rifles. See C.R.S. §§ 18-12-101, 102 (2003). However, C.R.S. §29-11.7-103, quoted above, purports to prohibit local ordinances which prohibit the sale, purchase or possession of a firearm allowable under state or federal law.

The City argues that regulation of assault weapons and Saturday night specials is a purely local issue based on the unique characteristics of Denver described above. Further, the City's ordinance banning assault weapons has been in effect since 1989, while the sale of Saturday night specials has been banned since 1975. The State has never chosen to legislate in this area. The State responds that this area, like all gun control, is an area of mixed state and local concern and that the state statute preempting conflicting City ordinances predominates.

I hold for the City on this issue. Subsection (a) of the assault weapons ordinance states the City Council's findings as to why assault weapons pose a threat to the health, safety and security of the citizens of Denver and that the increasing use of assault weapons for criminal activities has resulted in a record number of related homicides and injuries to both citizens and law enforcement officers. Like open carry, there is little need for statewide uniformity given the unique characteristics of Denver, and the impact of the ordinances on people living outside of Denver is minimal. The exceptions under the assault weapons ban allow the legitimate transportation of weapons by nonresidents through Denver, and the ban on Saturday night specials only applies to sales by dealers within the City and County of Denver. My evaluation of the totality of the circumstances is that Denver's interest in limiting the impact of assault weapons and Saturday night specials in Denver far outweighs the State's insubstantial interest in uniformity of gun control laws, especially since the State has never chosen to legislate in this arena before.

For the reasons stated above, I find the State has failed to demonstrate a significant interest in requiring every city and town to allow assault weapons and Saturday night specials. Thus, I conclude that the City has proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that C.R.S. §29-11.7-103, insofar as the state relies on it to preempt the ordinances at issue here, is an unconstitutional infringement on the home rule powers of the City and County of Denver as guaranteed by Article XX, § 6 of the Colorado Constitution

JUVENILES/SAFE STORAGE

Both state and local law restrict making any firearm available to a minor. DRMC §38124 makes it unlawful for any person to sell, loan or furnish a firearm to a minor. There are no exceptions.

DRMC §38-131 (b) reads:

It shall be unlawful for any person to store, control or possess any firearm within or upon any premises of which that person has an ownership interest, custody or control, in such a manner that that person knows or should know, that a minor Is likely to be in possession of the firearm and in the event that the minor does, in fact, obtain possession of the firearm.

Subsection (c) of the safe storage ordinance contains exceptions for when the firearm is kept in a locked container or equipped with a trigger guard not available to the minor or when the minor obtains the firearm in a lawful act of self defense or defense of the minor's home and property.

State law similarly outlaws providing firearms to minors but permits minors to possess weapons for safety classes, hunting, target practice and similar purposes. C.R.S. § 18-12-108.5 (2003).

The City argues that its regulation of possession of fircarns by minors is not equivalent to the prohibition proscribed iced by C.R.S^.§29-11.7-103.As I did above, I reject this statutory construction argument. The City also argues that restricting possession of firearms by juveniles is a local issue. The State argues that this is a mixed issue on which the state statute must predominate.

Based on the totality of the factors to be considered, I conclude that possession of firearms by juveniles is a mixed issue of state and local concern. I am unpersuaded that Denver has such unique characteristics in this area that its local interests predominate and make the state interest insubstantial. Because DRMC §38-124 lacks any exceptions, it does prohibit activities which would be permitted under state law and is therefore preempted.

However, with regard to the safe storage ordinance, §38-131, I see no conflict with state law. State law is silent on the question of safe storage, and this ordinance does not prohibit the sale, purchase or possession of any firearm as described in C.R.S. §29-11.7-103. Therefore, the safe storage ordinance is not preempted.

FIREARMS IN CITY PARKS

Since 1996 it has been unlawful for any person to possess any firearm within any Denver park, parkway, mountain park or other recreational facility. DRMC §39-9(a). State law is silent on possession of firearms in parks. The State argues that this ordinance is preempted by C.R.S. §29-11.7-103. Further, the State argues that if the City wishes to prohibit open carrying of firearms in city parks, the City may post notices at the entrances to such parks under C.R.S. §29-11.7-104.

The City argues that regulating the possession of weapons in city parks is a purely local issue and that it is unreasonable and impractical to require the City to post every entrance to its vast network of parks and parkways. Further, the ordinances apply to both concealed carry and open carry, while posting would prohibit only open carry.

The State does not object to the portion of the ordinance which prohibits the display, flourish or discharge of firearms in city parks, presumably because these restrictions are roughly consistent with state law. See C.R.S. § 18-12-106(1)(a) and (b) (2003).

On this issue, the City's argument is supported by state law. C.R.S. §31-25-201 (2003) grants the City authority to establish, maintain and acquire lands for parkways, parks or recreational purposes. More specifically, in C.R.S. §31-25-216 (2003), a city and county is granted full police power and jurisdiction over extraterritorial parklands, of which Denver has a substantial collection. The State has not sought to regulate the City's policing of its own parks until the enactment of Senate Bill 25. Denver's park system is unique to it, especially with regard to its extensive system of mountain parks and parkways. Any need for uniformity is vastly outweighed by Denver's judgment that its citizens are safer without guns in the parks. There is no extraterritorial impact to this ordinance. Commuter routes typically do not traverse parklands, and it is riot an unreasonable burden for visitors to Denver to inform themselves as to restrictions on guns in parks. The State has not shown any substantial interest in requiring a municipality to open its parks to all guns, as described above, the bare interest in uniformity is unconvincing. Therefore, based on the totality of the circumstance s, 1 conclude that the issue of open carry of firearms in parks is one of exclusive local concern. To the extent that C.R.S. 529-11.7-103 purports to preempt the Denver ordinance as it prohibits open carry in parks, I find beyond a reasonable doubt that it is unconstitutional.

However, the City's local concern for policing its own parks collides with the statewide statutory scheme governing carrying concealed handguns with a permit. The City has admitted that concealed carry is an area of mixed state and local concern. As stated above, the State's creation of uniform regulations on concealed carry predominates. Since the ordinance prohibiting all firearms in parks conflicts with the state statutes on concealed carry, the ordinance is preempted by state law only as to concealed handguns carried with a permit.

CONCLUSION DECLARATION AND INJUNCTION

Based on the foregoing conclusions of law, I hereby order as follows:

1. DRMC §§38-117(a), 38-117(f) and 38-118, insofar as these ordinances regulate the carrying of firearms in automobiles without a permit, are preempted by C.R.S. §§18-12-204(2)(a), 18-12-214(1)(a) and 18-12-105.6 (2003) to the extent their language is mare restrictive than state e law as described above. These ordinances remain valid and enforceable in all other respects.

2. DRMC §§38-117(b) and 38-118, insofar as these ordinances regulate the open carrying of firearms, remain valid and enforceable by the City and are not preempted by C.R.S. §29-11.7-103 (2003).

3. DRMC §38-130, concerning assault weapons, remains valid and enforceable by the City and is not preempted by C.R.S. §29-11.7-103 (2003).

4. DRMC § 38-122(b) and (c), prohibiting the sale of Saturday night specials, remains valid and enforceable by the City, and is not preempted by C.R.S. §2911.7-103 (2003).

5. DRMC § 38-124, insofar as this ordinance prohibits the furnishing of firearms to minors without exceptions, is preempted by C.R.S. §18-12-108.5 (2003).

6. DRMC §38-131, concerning the safe storage of firearms, remains valid and enforceable by the City and is not preempted by C.R.S. § 18-12-108.5 or §2911.7-103.

7. DRMC §39-9 prohibiting firearms in parks:

A. Remains valid and enforceable by the City in regard to all firearms other than concealed handguns carried with a pen^-nit, and is not preempted by C.R.S. 29-1 1.7-1⁰ 3 (2003)

B. Is preempted in regard to concealed handguns carried with a permit by C.R.S. §§18-12-204(2)(a), 18-12-214(1)(a) and 18-12-105.6 (2003).

8. Since the State has conceded the continuing validity and enforceability of the following City ordinances and regulations, these ordinances remain valid and enforceable and are not preempted by C.R.S. §29-11.7.103 (2003) or other state statutes:

A. DRMC § 14-92, concerning firearms in vehicles, presumption of possession;

B. DRMC §38-117(c), concerning the display and flourishing of firearms;

C. DRMC §38-121, concerning the firing and discharge of weapons;

D. DRMC §38-123, concerning identification and records of weapons sales;

E. DRMC §38-124, insofar as this ordinance prohibits the furnishing of firearms to intoxicated persons and others;

F. DRMC §42-137, concerning the carrying of firearms by licensed security guards,

G. DRMC §59-80(6)(c)(1), concerning the sale of firearms by licensed dealers in residential zone districts;

H. Career Service Authority Rules 15-110(A) and 16-50(A)(6), concerning the unauthorized carrying of firearms by City employees; and

I. Manager of Aviation Rules 20.09 and 20.10, prohibiting firearms in restricted areas of the airport.

9. The State is and shall be permanently enjoined from enforcing against the City the preemptive language of the statutes adopted or amended by SB 03-24 and SB 03-25, or from otherwise interfering with Denver's enforcement of the City ordinances and regulations set forth above in paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 6, 7A and 8A through 81 on the basis of these statutes.

10. Any and all claims related to DRMC §38-125 shall be dismissed due to the fact that this ordinance was repealed after the institution of this action by the City.

SO ORDERED.

Dated this 5th day of November, 2004.

cc: David Broadwell, Assistant City Attorney, Attorney for Plaintiffs

Robert Dodd, Assistant Attorney General, Attorney for Defendants

Ding, dong, the Witch (the Assault Weapons Ban) is dead... for now.

Ding, dong, the Witch (the Assault Weapons Ban) is dead... for now.

After ten years, the Feinstein Amendment to the 1994 Crime Bill is now no longer in effect in America. Once thought guaranteed to be reauthorized, this amendment's ten year sunset provision has come back to bite its authors.

Few will recall every detail of this battle, since it has spanned more than a decade and the main "combatant" on the pro-gun side -- namely, the NRA -- spent so much time pretending the battle didn't exist. The 2002 Congressional election debates were devoid of this issue, largely because the group that purports to represent gun owners rarely brought it up.

Case in point: does anyone remember the NRA even attempting to pressure then-presidential candidate George W. Bush into changing his position on the assault weapons ban? Bush had staked out his position as early as 1998, yet many chose to ignore it -- giving credence to the claim that some organizations are more interested in getting invites to cocktail parties than effecting a strong change in our public policies on firearms. As the saying goes, you don't get invited to tea often when you are known to break the china.

But this issue could not be ignored: for the first time in American history, an entire class of firearms was banned.

The defense of these weapons was often a disingenuous plea of ignorance ("What IS an assault weapon, really?"), though this rang hollow. We all know what the gun-banners were trying to do: vilify an entire class of weapon they believed most gun owners would not defend. To tinker and argue about the definition of an "assault weapon" is ludicrous, as we all know which weapons (minus the gray areas) they are attempting to lock away from future use.

The gun-banners' calculations were wrong, though: grassroots gun owners around the country have been incensed by the issue (which is largely what prompted the NRA to begin their recent media campaign against the ban -- they know which side their bread is buttered).

In March of 2004, the witch had her best chance to reauthorize: Sen. Larry Craig, an NRA board member, was so driven by a piece of legislation (gun lawsuits immunity bill) that he accepted a "Unanimous Consent Agreement" to have a slew of gun control amendments offered (by objecting, he could have denied these attempts singlehandedly), not the least of which was reauthorization of Sen. Feinstein's "Assault Weapons ban".

This was the pivotal point, to date, in the life of the ban: had nothing been done, polite gentlemen in the U.S. Senate would have shaken hands and forwarded the ban (along with the largest collection of gun controls ever advanced in one piece of legislation) to the House. The very existence of this ban would be trusted to a small few in the U.S. House of Representatives, a tenuous defense indeed.

Instead, the grassroots answered with outrage: a dozen state-level gun rights groups openly attacked the ban, and more importantly, exposed the dangerous card playing the NRA was doing with this vital issue.

Now, we understand that "grassroots" is a frequently overused cliche. In this case, though, it was a textbook definition of the action. These groups, called the "Coalition Against the Semi-auto Ban" or CASB, openly defied the gun rights giant. It was a gamble, to be certain, since many gun owners always believe the NRA is doing the right thing. But remember: "A man famous for getting up at the crack of dawn can sleep until noon." In this case, the alarm clock rang loud.

And wake up many pols did: Sen. Craig committed the highest crime on Capitol Hill -- he killed his own bill. And with it, the witch's best chance of buying more time for her failed gun control was now dead.

But there was one more chance to reauthorize the ban: Sen. Bill Frist, Republican leader of the Senate. He could either allow Feinstein to offer her ban reauthorization amendment (to virtually any bill) or block it with a parliamentary move, something Frist claimed was not possible.

However, the able staff at Gun Owners of America -- don't kid yourselves, they are THE national pro-gun group -- showed Frist that a parliamentary move was possible, and may be the only way to stop the ban in the Senate. Again, with grassroots action, GOA and state-level groups applied enough heat to Frist to use that parliamentary move (which is always maligned by the left but used when they are in power). As former Sen. Dirksen said "When they feel the heat they see the light." Finally, a Republican proved why gun owners should want the GOP in leadership. This was truly a milestone

The real milestone in America was just reached today, on Sept. 13th, 2004 -- the first repeal of a major gun control has taken place, though mostly because of inaction than the affirmative action of Congress. Either way, we'll take this victory, even if it is short-lived.

The witch isn't going away, but its power is fading. Though public opinion polls show support for banning "assault weapons" (likely because they believe these weapons are "machine guns") some politicians are starting to understand that a vocal minority is a force to reckon with. Gun owners who want to see the certain future attempts at resurrecting this ban die must strive to prove that we are a force for politicians to fear, not eager lapdogs to dealing politicians.

For now, happy shopping.

The following are some links to sites which can answer many of the questions about the ban.

Coalition Against the Semi-auto Ban

GOA's alert about winning this battle

ATF Q&A on the Assault Weapons Ban

ATF letter on Ban

AWBanSunet.com

Semiautomatic Assault Weapon (SAW) Ban

QUESTIONS & ANSWERS

September 13, 2004

Q: What was the semiautomatic assault weapon (SAW) ban?

A: The SAW ban was enacted on September 13, 1994, by PL 103-322, Title IX, Subtitle A, section 110105. The ban made it unlawful to manufacture, transfer, or possess SAWs. The law defines SAWs as 19 named firearms, as well as semiautomatic rifles, pistols, and shotguns that have certain named features. The ban was codified at 18 U.S.C. § 922(v). SAWs lawfully possessed on September 13, 1994 were not covered by the ban. There also were certain exceptions, such as possession by law enforcement.

Q: Was the SAW ban permanent?

A: No. The law enacting the ban provided that it would expire 10 years from the date of enactment, which was September 13, 1994. Therefore, effective 12:01 a.m. on September 13, 2004, the provisions of the law will cease to apply.

Q. What was the Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device (LCAFD) ban?

A: The LCAFD ban was enacted along with the SAW ban on September 13, 1994. The ban made it unlawful to transfer or possess LCAFDs. The law generally defined a LCAFD as a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device manufactured after September 13, 1994 that has the capacity of, or can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The ban was codified at 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(w). As with SAWs, there are certain exceptions to the ban, such as possession by law enforcement.

Q: Was the LCAFD ban permanent?

A: No. The LCAFD ban was enacted by the same law as the SAW ban. Therefore, like the SAW ban, it expires 10 years from the date of enactment. Therefore, effective 12:01 a.m. on September 13, 2004, the provisions of the law will cease to apply.

Q: Does expiration of the ban affect records maintained by licensed manufacturers, importers and dealers?

A. Yes. Federal firearms licensees are no longer required to collect special records regarding the sale or transfer of SAWs and LCAFDs for law enforcement or government sales. However, existing records on SAWs and LCAFDs must still be maintained for a period of 5 years. Moreover, records of importation and manufacture must be maintained permanently and licensees must maintain all other acquisition and disposition records for 20 years.

Q: Are SAWs and LCAFDs marked “Restricted law enforcement/government use only” or “For export only” legal to sell to civilians in the United States?

A: Yes. SAWs and LCAFDs are no longer prohibited. Therefore firearms with the restrictive markings are legal to transfer to civilians in the United States and it will be legal for non-prohibited civilians to possess them. All civilians may possess LCAFDs.

Q: Does the expiration of the SAW ban and the LCAFD ban affect importation?

A: LCAFDs are no longer prohibited from importation but they are still subject to the provisions of the Arms Export Control Act. An approved Form 6 import permit is still required. Non-sporting firearms are still prohibited from importation under sections 922(l) and 925(d)(3) of the GCA. Because the vast majority of SAWs are nonsporting, they generally cannot be imported.

If an importer has an approved Form 6 import permit for LCAFDs with a restriction stamp on it related to the ban, the importer may import LCAFDs using the permit and disregard the restriction stamp. Importers may apply for a new permit if they prefer.

Temporary importation of SAWs and LCAFDs is now lawful under the provisions of Title 27, CFR, section 478.115(d) because firearms that are temporarily imported are not required to meet sporting purpose requirements.

Q: Does the expiration of the SAW ban change laws regarding assembly of nonsporting shotguns and semiautomatic rifles from imported parts?

A: No. The provisions of section 922(r) of the GCA and the regulations in 27 CFR 478.39 regarding assembly of non-sporting shotguns and semiautomatic rifles from imported parts still apply.

Q. Does the expiration of the SAW ban affect firearms under the National Firearms Act?

A: All provisions of the National Firearms Act (NFA) relating to registration and transfer of machineguns, short barreled rifles, weapons made from rifles, short barreled shotguns, weapons made from shotguns, any other weapons as defined in 26 USC section 5845(e), silencers, and destructive devices still apply. However, it is now lawful to possess NFA firearms that are also semiautomatic assault weapons, as long as all provisions of the NFA are satisfied.

USAS-12 and Striker12/Streetsweeper shotguns are still classified as destructive devices under ATF Rulings 94-1 and 94-2 and must be possessed and transferred in accordance with the NFA.

Q: Can tribal law enforcement entities now possess SAWs and LCAFDs?

A: Yes.

Q: Does the expiration of the ban affect State law?

A: Expiration of the federal law will not change any provisions of State law or local ordinances. Questions concerning State assault weapons restrictions should be referred to State and local authorities.

Q: Whom should I call if I have a question?

A: Your local ATF office.

Download the PDF Version

RMGO PAC formed to fight for our rights in Colorado's 2004 Elections

Rocky Mountain Gun Owners PAC
Colorado's ONLY Pro-Gun Political Action Committee

Gun Control PAC -- Colorado Ceasefire -- raises $13,000 and counting

Colorado Ceasefire's gun control 2004 candidate survey (This file is in Adobe Acrobat pdf format)

RMGO PAC formed to defend gun rights in Colorado's 2004 elections Click HERE to donate

July 15, 2004

Dear friend of freedom,

They’re stripping us of our First Amendment rights so they can destroy our Second Amendment rights.

I know this sounds like something out of a George Orwell novel, but politicians –- along with liberal, gun-grabbing interest groups –- don’t want grassroots organizations like Rocky Mountain Gun Owners to be effective in defending our rights.

Fortunately for us, they’ve left a loophole.

But first, let me back up and start from the beginning.

You know me as the Executive Director of Colorado’s largest gun rights group.

I’ve fought alongside you –- and thousands like you –- to defend freedom and advance the cause of liberty for more than a decade.

Even after the Columbine tragedy, when most of the so-called “pro-gun” groups scurried away with a feeble look on their face (which only made gun owners look guilty for the vile acts of two deranged madmen), I pro-actively defended our views and constitutional rights. Geraldo Rivera heaped his scorn on me when I was a guest on his “news” program, but I wear that scorn as a badge of honor.

But I write you today in a different capacity.

You see, I’ve formed Rocky Mountain Gun Owners PAC.

What’s a PAC? A “political action committee” is an entity that can endorse candidates, give them money, and –- more importantly –- tell citizens the truth about candidates who run for office.

In years past, RMGO has had the most active gun issues PAC in Colorado. And it has been helpful to elect strong, no-compromise candidates to the legislature.

But this election year things have changed. The anti-gunners have decided that they can shut us – you, me and our entire grassroots network –- down by passing limitations on our free speech.

In other words, these gun-grabbers will stomp on our First Amendment rights of free speech so that they can savage our Second Amendment rights with impunity. And make no mistake about it, once RMGO is hamstrung, they’ll be no united group left to stand for freedom in Colorado.

Unfortunately for the gun-banners, they left a little “loophole”.

By passing draconian limits on free speech for organizations like Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, they’ve left a gap that actually gives us an advantage.

You see, the gun-grabbers think firearms owners are a rich bunch, and that fatcat donors write $100,000 checks to bankroll our efforts.

Though I’m happy they are under that illusion, I don’t mind telling you that they have things wrong –- very wrong.

RMGO and RMGO PAC are grassroots organizations. Though we’d love to have a big donor write a huge check to give us the resources to fight gun control and advance freedom, it hasn’t happened –- and probably won’t. We’re too uncompromising in our defense of freedom for most of the bluebloods to donate to us.

We do, however, have a lot of people –- just like you –- who work for a living, go about your everyday lives, and care about freedom.

Here’s where it gets interesting: the new campaign laws allow for the formation of a “Small Donor PAC”.

That’s what RMGO PAC is filed as. And RMGO PAC can only accept donations of $50 per person (so a couple could give $100).

Unlike other PACs –- which are limited to donating small amounts to state-level offices –- a small donor PAC can give up to $4,000 per election year.

And RMGO PAC can spend up to that amount educating voters about candidates and telling the truth about their stances on guns.

This is huge! Through this loophole, we can have an enormous effect on who is elected.

I believe we should use this to our advantage.

Our plan is to get thousands of Rocky Mountain Gun Owners members and gun rights activists across the state to donate $50 per person –- the maximum you can give.

Can you imagine what we can do with that kind of clout?

This could lead to the biggest change in Colorado history...

...but only if you will join with RMGO PAC and donate the maximum amount.

If we can get gun owners to band together, united in the cause of freedom, to fully fund this PAC, we can make an enormous difference for in our state.

State law only allows you to donate $50 per person – or $100 per couple – to this Small Donor PAC, and so it is imperative that everyone give the maximum donation – or at least as much as you can afford.

In fact, it is vital that we all give sacrificially to this PAC, or the enemies of our firearms freedoms will almost certainly will beat us.

That’s why I need you to do these three things today:

1. Use the following Rocky Mountain Gun Owners PAC “Freedom 2004 Campaign” reply to indicate to me if you would like to be a part of the largest gun rights political action committee in Colorado history.

2. Donate the maximum amount -- $50 per person -– to RMGO PAC, and send it off today.

Don’t forget to fill in the “Occupation” and “Employer” lines – silly as they might be, they are yet another example of the limitations being placed on free Americans by the anti-gun liberals who pass these new campaign finance laws.

Unfortunately, we don't have the equipment to take credit card donations to our PAC (our PAC's bank account must be totally separate from our regular organization's finances).

3. Get your wife, a friend, a family member or a shooting buddy from your local gun club to contribute and use the bottom contribution form.

But don’t wait – you must hurry. The Primary election is only weeks away, and your contribution could mean the difference between a win or a loss for a solid, pro-gun State House candidate.

All you need to do is print out the below reply, fill it out, and send it off with your donation. I've also attached an html document that you can print out as a reply. (or you can find this document on our webpage HERE.

If you'd like to get your friends from work involved in this effort, you can print out the reply and urge them to donate as well.

It truly is that important, and time is VERY short.

You can be a part of one of the biggest battles in Colorado history. I hope you will.

For freedom,

/s/

Dudley Brown

P.S. Though new campaign finance laws were meant to shut out gun owners, we have something the gun-grabbers in both parties don’t: grassroots activism.

I hope you will donate the maximum allowable by law –- $50 –- to the Rocky Mountain Gun Owners PAC today!

Paid for by Rocky Mountain Gun Owners PAC, Dudley Brown Treasurer

Here Comes the Semi-Auto Ban Again [www.gunowners.org]

6/04 Here Comes The Semi-Auto Ban Again

http://gunowners.org/a060204.htm

Feinstein Planning to Offer Semi-auto Ban as an Amendment Soon
-- Please urge your Senators to oppose this effort

Gun Owners of America
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102
Springfield, VA 22151
(703)321-8585

Wednesday, June 2, 2004

Well, we knew this day would eventually come.

GOA has been warning gun owners that Democrat Senator Dianne Feinstein of California would be looking for an avenue to attach her gun ban to unrelated legislation sometime this year.

According to Senate sources, Feinstein will be making her move quite soon.

While she reportedly has her eyes on a number of different bills as possible vehicles for her amendment, it seems certain that she will try to piggy-back her anti-gun language onto a legal reform bill (such as S. 2062) within the next few weeks.

You will remember that when Feinstein offered her gun ban amendment in March, it passed 52-47.

While a switch of only three Senators would be enough to kill the amendment, it seems that the easiest way to defeat Feinstein will be through a filibuster. Our side only needs 41 Senators to kill her amendment through the art of filibuster, and it would appear that we definitely have that many votes... BUT ONLY IF THE 47 SENATORS WHO VOTED RIGHT LAST TIME CONTINUE TO HOLD THE LINE!

That’s why we need another barrage of phone calls and e-mails going into Senate offices.

ACTION: Please contact your Senators and urge them to oppose any Feinstein amendment to reinstate the semi-auto ban. Tell them to also support any effort to filibuster this unconstitutional legislation.

You can send the letter as an e-mail by visiting the GOA Legislative Action Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm (where phone and fax numbers are also available).

----- Pre-written letter -----

Dear Senator:

I have been alerted to the fact that Sen. Dianne Feinstein is planning to offer the renewal of Clinton’s semi-auto ban as an amendment to legislation in upcoming weeks.

I would join the voices of many other Americans who would urge you to support our call for a filibuster against the reauthorization.

Please know that the Clinton semi-auto ban is one of the most hated pieces of legislation ever enacted, and those who support its reauthorization will find no friends or votes within the pro-gun community.

Sincerely,

****************************

Pratt To Speak

Larry Pratt, Gun Owners of America’s Executive Director, will be speaking at the Freedom Roast in Sioux Falls, SD on Saturday, June 12.

This is a family event with attractions for the kids while the parents are taking in the speeches or filling up on the free eats at this gala hog roast.

Pratt will be available at the GOA tent when he is not at the podium. His book and GOA membership applications will be available.

See http://www.freedomroast.us for more information.

S.1805 Monstrosity dead -- RMGO members deserve huge credit

S.1805 Monstrosity dead -- RMGO members deserve huge credit

March 2, 2004 - Though you can expect a full and lengthy account of the events today, we wanted to send out an immediate message of thanks to RMGO activists for being one of the driving forces to kill S.1805, which became a full-blown gun control bill.

Earlier today -- as expected -- S.1805 had a number of anti-gun amendments attached, including a renewal of the assault weapons ban and closing the "gun show loophole".

In other words, there was no way even the compromisers who run the NRA Capitol Hill lobbying program could deny it: S.1805 was a gun control bill.

The NRA's original plan was to pass it to the House with these (and possibly other) gun controls on the bill, then hope the House leadership stripped them out. This incredibly risky strategy was a recipe for disaster, but it was a meal we would all have to stomach -- until a number of state-level gun rights organizations decided to take action.

We weren't alone -- a loose-knit group of no compromise organizations like Rocky Mountain Gun Owners followed our lead, and rallied the troops.

With your action -- remember, ideas do not have consequences, only actions do -- we put the heat on the NRA. They were playing poker with OUR gun rights, and they're playing a very risky strategy. Our message was NO THANKS!

And, of course, their apologists came out of the woodwork, first claiming there were no sneaky deals and then claiming the deals would work.

Don't let anyone tell you differently: there was a deal in the works, but the grassroots said "No more backroom deals in smoke-filled rooms, no more sneaky insider maneuvers, no more compromises."

It was because of you, and your actions, that we won this battle.

You'll hear the NRA claim they planned on killing it in the Senate once the bill wasn't clean, but we all know that isn't accurate: Even an hour before the final vote today, the NRA was saying they would fix the bill in the House.

We all know what we get when we let the NRA drive the bus: they come back to us, apologizing that they couldn't win and telling us that the gun controls that passed (with the NRA's help) aren't as bad as those that were proposed. Again, no thanks.

We all want to protect firearms manufacturers from frivolous lawsuits, but it simply isn't worth the possibility of passing a renewal of the Assault Weapons ban, trigger locks, gun show restrictions, NRA-supported "Armor Piercing Ammo" bans, cops only concealed carry, etc.

In the end, we all did what we had to do: oppose gun control, no matter who is pushing it.

In the next few days we'll write a blow-by-blow of this entire battle.

For now, know that the grassroots activists have won the day.

Emergency Alert: Oppose Gun Control -- Kill S.1805

Oppose Gun Control -- Kill S.1805

March 1, 2004, 1700 hrs Mountain - Please read the following communication and then call your US Senators.

Senator Wayne Allard can be reached at (202) 224-5941.

Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell can be reached at (202) 224-5852.

Also call the NRA -- tell them that S.1805 already has gun control attached to it (the Kohl Trigger Locks amendment), and, according to former NRA muckety muck Neal Knox, "Let me assure you: S. 1805 WILL CONTAIN A LOT MORE GUN CONTROL."

Call the NRA-ILA immediately toll-free at 800-392-8683 and/or e-mail them at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it '; document.write( '' ); document.write( addy_text52155 ); document.write( '<\/a>' ); //--> This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

Urge the NRA to pull the plug and kill S.1805 in the Senate, before it has any more gun control on it. Tell them to STOP approving anti-gun amendments like Kohl's gun lock-up law.

More and more it's looking like S.1805 is a turkey that can't be saved.

We are already facing the ridiculous reality that the "gun liability" bill, which was supposed to PROTECT dealers and manufacturers from baseless lawsuits, now has a brand new liability built into it; penalties if handguns are not provided with gun locks.

As you know, we have fought and defeated similar proposals that would require that you render your guns useless, here in Colorado.

Though we've defeated this kind of law in the Colorado legislature, we are having this irrational requirement shoved down our throats by the Feds. What's worse, it seems like the NRA has bought off on this crackpot scheme.

In an alert dated Feb 27 '04 the NRA describes the Kohl amendment which mandates this new intrusion into your rights this way:

"The Kohl amendment is much less restrictive and also provides liability protection for gun owners."

But that "protection" is only for people who lock up their guns and render them useless!

If you read the amendment, it only provides liability protection IF YOU LOCK UP YOUR GUNS. In other words, the NRA is buying into the argument of the gun-grabbers -- that locking up your gun makes you safer.

According to Professor John Lott (in "More Guns, Less Crime", page 199):

"Safe storage rules also seem to cause some real problems. Passage of these laws is significantly related to almost 9 percent more rapes and robberies and 5.6 percent more burglaries. In terms of total crime in 1996, the presence of the law in just these fifteen states was associated with 3,600 more rapes, 22,500 more robberies, and 64,000 more burglaries."

Page 201 of the same book says "We find no support for the theory that safe storage laws reduce either juvenile accidental gun deaths or suicides. Instead, these storage requirements appear to impair people's ability to use guns defensively."

As more people are forced to get these "locking devices" the anti-gun politicians will take the next step: a law making you use them to lock up your guns or else you'll be a criminal. Then they can arrest you and confiscate your guns, which is what they wanted all along.

Later in the NRA-ILA alert they state :

"The Senate then debated and voted upon two amendments seeking to gut S.1805. The first related to the D.C. sniper case, but the proposal by Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.) was defeated, 56-40. A so-called "law enforcement" exemption offered by Sen. Jon Corzine (D-N.J.) was soundly defeated, 56 to 38.

NRA strongly opposed both amendments."

Why then, we must wonder, didn't the NRA oppose the horrible Kohl amendment? Is it because the two amendments "seeking to gut S.1805" were defeated and the Kohl amendment, which they don't even criticize, passed? Is this the strategy of the NRA, to claim, after the fact, opposition to bad amendments that fail, while giving tacit approval to bad amendments that pass?

Many of you have no doubt seen the internet traffic where some have accused the NRA of having cut a deal going into this bill. You may have also seen the strongly worded denials from NRA. But now we must say our concern is greater than ever. If there is no deal, as NRA has repeatedly stated, why the approval of Kohl's gun lock-up amendment? What are they willing to compromise next?

In the NRA alert described above, the NRA states :

> "NRA-ILA stands committed to enacting into law, a "clean" (without any
> anti-gun amendments) S. 1805. And, as we have from Day One, we will
> continue to vigorously oppose any anti-gun amendments to S. 1805,
> specifically, reauthorization of the 1994 Clinton gun ban in any way,
> shape, or form, and imposing restrictions on gun shows."

But the bill ALREADY HAS AN ANTI-GUN AMENDMENT AND THE NRA HAS NOT OPPOSED IT!!!

Already today (Monday, March 1) an amendment to reauthorize the so-called "Assault Weapons" ban was made (and will be voted upon on Tuesday). Colorado Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell voted for that inital ban. We also know that NRA endorsed- and- supported George Bush has promised he would sign a renewal of the semi-auto ban. Yet not one word has been written by NRA distancing themselves from Campbell and in same alert referenced above they state:

> Using the bully pulpit of the White House, President Bush offered the
> following statement highlighting his support for the lawsuit bill
> without
> any anti-gun amendments: "The Administration strongly supports Senate
> passage of S. 1805. The Administration urges the Senate to pass a clean
> bill, in order to ensure enactment of the legislation this year. Any
> amendment that would delay enactment of the bill beyond this year is
> unacceptable.

But Bush NEVER says he won't sign it. Why would a new semi-auto ban "delay enactment" if he's already promised to sign it?

As NRA muckety muck Neal Knox wrote, "Let me assure you: S.1805 WILL CONTAIN A LOT MORE GUN CONTROL."

Much has been made of the promise that this bill will be "fixed" when it goes back to a conference committee with the House. That is pure speculation and wishful thinking. We were made similar promises about other bills like "campaign finance reform" and now we face penalties if we dare discuss candidates in the months before an election!

Please call:

Senator Wayne Allard (202) 224-5941

Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell (202) 224-5852

Also please call the NRA -- tell them that S.1805 already has gun control attached to it (the Kohl Trigger Locks amendment) and urge them to kill S.1805 in the Senate.

NRA insiders are now privately whispering that NRA leadership is nervous, and the grumblings are that this bill is out of control and growing its own legs.

Call the NRA-ILA immediately toll-free at 800-392-8683 and/or e-mail them at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it '; document.write( '' ); document.write( addy_text27569 ); document.write( '<\/a>' ); //--> This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

Urge the NRA to pull the plug and kill S.1805 in the Senate, before it has any MORE gun control on it.

The standard (public) NRA response is that they're working hard to pass a clean bill. Tell the NRA that the bill is already dirty, and needs to be defeated NOW -- before it gets even worse.

S.1805 has Gun Control attached -- KILL IT!

EMERGENCY ALERT - S.1805 has Gun Control attached -- KILL IT!

Feb. 26, 2004, 1300 hrs Mountain - As predicted, S.1805, the Lawsuit Liability bill, is being debated on the Senate Floor right now (at the behest of its sponsor, Idaho Senator Larry Craig).

And late last night, Senator Larry Craig (a board member of the NRA) worked with rabid anti-gunner Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI) to come up with a "Unanimous Consent Agreement" which allows a large number of gun control amendments to be offered to S.1805.

By pushing this bill to be heard on the floor, and agreeing to hear a large number of gun control amendments (listed below), Senator Craig has opened up Pandora's Box of Gun Control.

That means you MUST call your US Senators immediately, even if you called them yesterday.

Senator Wayne Allard can be reached at (202) 224-5941.

Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell can be reached at (202) 224-5852.

Urge both of Colorado's Senators to VOTE AGAINST S.1805, now that it has gun control on it and is likely to contain more.

As this alert is being written, the Senate just passed an amendment (by 70-27, for story on this amendment click here, or here for full text) to require Trigger locks (we do not have the language, but will shortly) and is moving toward more gun control. It's a federal government intrusion on your right to self-defense, and FAR outweighs any good S.1805's original language would do.

And as this is being written, Sen. Teddy Kennedy is offering an amendment to ban "Cop Killer Bullets."

After agreeing to the "Unanimous Consent Agreement", Sen. Larry Craig said "Some of these amendments could pass." This C-Span2 admission is understating it -- some of these gun control amendments WILL pass. In fact, one already has, and others gun control advocates are lining up to join in on the "fun".

NRA Board Member Sen. Larry Craig has agreed to allow a slated list of gun control amendments to S.1805. These include, but are not limited to, the following unspecified gun controls:

Boxer - new Federal rules for Gun locks
Campbell - Cop-Only Nationwide Carry
Kennedy - Cop Killer Bullets
Mikulski - Snipers
McCain-Reed - Gun Show ban
Feinstein - Assault Weapons ban
Frist/Craig - Cop Killer bullets (a toned down, yet still anti-gun rights version of Kennedy's amendment)

And these are only the amendments that have been announced. Others almost certainly will be floated, and maybe passed.

Does this constitute proof that the NRA "struck a deal" to allow gun controls to pass? Of course, they claim they didn't cut any deals.

But ask these questions:

1. Have you received an e-mail from NRA-ILA urging voting against S.1805 IF it gets gun control on it? They KNOW quite well that this bill will have gun control on it, and have known it for weeks. Instead, they play inside baseball and tell gun owners "Trust us -- we have a plan", trusting in their own cleverness to circumvent the anti-gunners amendments. That is the same thing they said on the McCain-Fiengold Campaign Finance Deform bill (which stripped gun owners of their 1st Amendment rights) as well as the first Assault Weapons and High-capacity magazines ban bill, Brady Registration Checks, Lautenberg Gun Ban, etc, etc.

That's a failed strategy, and should be abandoned.

Remember, the definition of insanity is continuing to do what you've always done but expecting different results.

They'll post some things on their website (which is passive), but they won't apply real pressure. That mean's they are, by their silence, agreeing to this "Unanimous Consent Agreement." And their board member, Sen. Larry Craig, openly agreed to that agreement with Sen. Reed.

Craig will vote against most (not all -- in fact, Sen. Craig offered his own "Cop Killer Bullets" amendment in an attempt to appease Teddy Kennedy) of the gun controls, but he's the person who enabled all of these gun control amendments.

2. Why would an NRA board member accept a Unanimous Consent Agreement to allow a huge number of amendments to be debated, all of which strip gun owners of their rights and many of which that board member (and US Senator) knows will pass?

The writer of this alert is a former staff member (not intern) of the U.S. Senate, under Senator Bill Armstrong. I know how the U.S. Senate works, and have been in regular consultation with those who have worked in all aspects of Congress for decades.

One thing is crystal clear: the NRA's mouthpiece, US Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho), has agreed to let these amendments be heard, and he knows some will be attached to the bill.

3. Have you heard the NRA say that they will oppose S.659/S.1805 in the Senate if it gets gun control amendments on it? We haven't, and doubt we will, since their US Senator is the one who enabled those amendments to be attached. Their plan, to let these gun controls ride on the bill and hope they are stripped out in the House, is an incredibly risky gambit, which if lost will result in the largest erosion of our rights in American history.

There's no more time to waste.

Call your US Senators immediately and urge them to vote AGAINST S.1805.

Senator Wayne Allard can be reached at (202) 224-5941.

Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell can be reached at (202) 224-5852.

Urge them to vote against S.1805.

It's time to pull the plug on this well-meaning, but gun-control-laden dog.

Act now, or lose your Assault Weapons forever!

NRA OK's Strategy to Force Pro-Gun Senators to Support Assault Weapons Ban, Gun Show InstaChecks

Feb. 24, 2004 - Your worst nightmare has come true!

Tomorrow morning (10 am Eastern Time on Feb. 25, 2004), the Senate leadership –- headed by the feckless Sen. Bill Frist (R-Tenn) –- is prepared to push a comprehensive gun package which includes:

the gun liability bill (S. 659);
an extension of the so-called "Assault Weapons" ban;
a "Gun Show Loophole" bill, which will kill all gun shows.

And the NRA-ILA is getting ready to urge supposedly pro-gun senators to vote for the entire package!

When the bill comes to the Senate floor, Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif) and John McCain (R-Ariz) are expected to offer amendments to re-enact the so-called "Assault Weapons" ban and to "close the gun show loophole."

Insiders with decades of experience lobbying Congress on gun issues report one or both of these amendments are likely to pass with the NRA's silent backing.

The “gun show loophole” amendment would effectively eliminate gun shows. This is because it would be a felony to fail to notify each and every “person who attends the [gun show] of the [requirements of the Brady Law].” Thus, if the person responsible for handing out “Brady Law pamphlets” goes to the bathroom, each and every member of the board of the sponsoring organization could go to prison.

What everyone on the Hill knows is that, if the the NRA's silent deal stands, there are a majority of votes in the US Senate to reauthorize the Assault Weapons ban, and there may be the votes to close the "Gun Show Loophole."

The NRA and Frist will quietly pressure pro-gun senators to vote for these amendments –- complete with an extension of the Assault Weapons gun ban and the McCain language to eliminate gun shows.

Of course, the NRA is publicly opposing the Assault Weapons ban amendment, but know quite well that their silent deal will enable it to pass.

The gig is up -- the NRA has crossed the line. The Assault Weapons ban is the most important piece of legislation to ever face gun owners, and they are playing games with it, all for a bill that will have only limited effect on manufacturers of firearms.

The gun liability bill is a big priority for the NRA and the Senate leadership. It would supposedly limit frivolous lawsuits against gun dealers and manufacturers. BUT it would CONTINUE TO ALLOW SUITS FOR NEGLIGENCE (dubbed "negligent entrustment" in the bill) AND FOR DESIGN DEFECT.

Since 34 (out of 34) local government suits raise charges of "negligence" –- and 27 out of 34 raise allegations of "design defect" –- S. 659 may not do much, and shouldn't be considered on the same plane of importance as the "Assault Weapons" ban reauthorization.

The NRA's strategy is to risk the permanent ban of all military style "assault weapons" so that they can pass a liability protection bill of dubious merit.

But their risk is our loss.

As part of the NRA silent deal, not one piece of mail has been dropped by the NRA to their members alerting them to the upcoming attack by the anti-gunners. Their silence has allowed the anti-gunners a golden opportunity to forever ban dozens of semi-auto firearms (and large capacity magazines) and destroy gun shows as we know them.

Of course, as all pro-gunners know, the only way gun owners win is when we all mobilize to defeat gun control. That's what we are doing right here, and right now.

This is a classic case of the dog that didn't bark. The NRA didn't warn members: as of the writing of this e-mail, there is nothing on their website regarding this deal.

Right now the only pressure on the US Senate is from the anti-gunners and the anti-gun media.

This will allow NRA operatives to quietly cut the deal to pass gun control, and say "This is the best we can do."

They'll chalk up one victory (the liability portion) and two defeats (assault weapons and gun shows), and hope the bill gets better in Conference. This kind of cavalier gambit is what they have used for decades, and gun owners always lose on these insider games.

What you can do:

Call the NRA-ILA immediately toll-free at 800-392-8683 and/or e-mail them at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it '; document.write( '' ); document.write( addy_text45996 ); document.write( '<\/a>' ); //--> This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

You can also e-mail one of the NRA-ILA Director of Federal Affairs, Chuck Cunningham, at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it '; document.write( '' ); document.write( addy_text83157 ); document.write( '<\/a>' ); //--> This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .

Tell the NRA to immediately drop this idiotic plan to let the Assault Weapons ban -- or any other gun control -- be tacked onto any legislation, and to pull out all the stops to defeat these gun controls, or lose your membership forever. If you are not an NRA member, tell them you are not a member because of these kinds of appeasements of the gun-grabbers.

Also contact both of Colorado's US Senators. Don't wait until later: use the below sample communication to e-mail, fax, or call our US Senators immediately. Or better yet, contact them in all three manners

Senator Wayne Allard
Phone (202) 224-5941
Fax (202) 224-6471

Contact via internet: http://allard.senate.gov/contactme (type letter in the online form, or paste the text below)

Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell
Phone (202) 224-5852
Fax (202) 228-4609

Contact via internet: http://campbell.senate.gov/email.htm (type letter in the online form, or paste the text below)

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

SAMPLE COMMUNICATION

Dear Senator:

Senator Bill Frist will ask you to vote for an anti-gun package containing:

-- S. 659, the gun liability bill;

-- an extension of the so-called "Assault Weapons" gun ban;

-- a gun show amendment which would effectively put gun shows out of business.

S. 659 is not worth swallowing an extension on the Assault Weapons ban or restrictions on gun shows. Both of these measures would constitute very egregious violations of Congress' constitutional authority. I hope you will do everything in your power to make sure these amendments do not end up in the bill.

Please know that any senator who votes to extend the Assault Weapons ban –- in whatever form –- or to restrict gun shows will be recognized as the anti-gun politician that he is. I will be watching how you vote. Thank you.

Sincerely,

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

Does your sheriff enter you into a Criminal Database?

Feb. 11, 2004 - After more than a year of pressuring the Colorado Bureau of Investigation to release the names of those Sheriff Departments that enter Concealed Carry Permit Holders into the CBI Criminal Database, we now have the information.

Thanks to gutsy State Rep. Greg Brophy (R-Wray), this list is now public information.

Remember, Sheriff's offices (and the Denver police) are the only offices now issuing permits. But prior to the 2003 legislation, Police Departments also issued permits, and therefore could enter permit holders into CCIC, the Colorado Crime Information Center.

CCIC Updated list (3/15/07)

When the 2003 law was passed, it allowed Sheriffs to continue to enter these names into the database. House Bill 1205, which will be heard on Monday, Feb. 16th, would make that statewide database of permit holders illegal.

Why would a sheriff want to enter permit holders into that database? Essentially, their claim can be distilled down to keeping records on "persons of interest." What that means is that you are considered a dangerous person, just like a convicted rapist or murderer.

The following Sheriff Departments are entering concealed carry permit holders into CCIC. Included are the number of entries into that database from that department (if the number is very small, such as El Paso county, it means they are not entering permit holders into CCIC):

Sheriff Offices

SO Adams County             732
SO Arapahoe County         146
SO Archuleta County         151
SO Boulder County             669
SO Delta County                 182
SO Dolores County             27
SO Eagle County                 42
SO Elbert County                 18
SO El Paso County             1
SO Fremont County             103
SO Gilpin County                 34
SO Gunnison County           77
SO Hinsdale County             36
SO Jefferson County         1460
SO Kit Carson County        40
SO Lake County                 38
SO La Plata County           666
SO Larimer County            2425
SO Lincoln County             5
SO Logan County             54
SO Mesa County             1085
SO Moffat County             6
SO Montezuma County     1
SO Montrose County       389
SO Otero County             32
SO Ouray County             11
SO Pitkin County             27
SO Rio Blanco County   100
SO San Juan County        4
SO Teller County             167
SO Yuma County             22
SO Broomfield                 103

Police Departments

PD Greenwood Village     7
PD Pagosa Springs         1
PD Carbondale                 5
PD Gunnison                     2
PD Arvada                         1
PD Golden                         24
PD Edgewater                  1
PD Fort Collins                 1
PD Palisade                     29
PD Monte Vista                8

To contact any of the sheriff's departments, go to:

http://www.csoc.org/counties.asp

What you can do about it?

We'll be offering suggestions as to how to pass HB1205 through the Colorado House (it already has every member of the committee it is being heard by as a co-sponsor) later.

For now, you should call your sheriff's department (if on this list) and DEMAND to be removed from this criminal database. It is an incredible outrage that Sheriffs would include permit holders on a statewide database with criminals, all designed to track you.

GOP House Leadership, Bob Briggs, Bill Sinclair kill Vermont/Alaska Carry bill

GOP House Leadership, Bob Briggs, Bill Sinclair kill Vermont/Alaska Carry bill

Feb. 11, 2004 - Yesterday the Colorado Freedom to Carry Act, HB1281, was killed by political maneuvering.

We'll detail the whole thing, but suffice it to say that what truly killed the bill was a deal cut between the NRA and Republican Leadership (at least in the House).

The House State Affairs Committee, where HB1281, is an 11-member group, with 7 Republicans and 4 Democrats. What used to be considered a very conservative committee has changed drastically, as you will see below.

Many of the usual suspects testified against the bill: Ron Sloan, who is the Arvada Chief of Police (he actually cited Handgun Control Inc in the hearing -- thanks, Chief Sloan, for keying us into your political leanings) and who testified on behalf of the Chiefs of Police, the County Sheriffs of Colorado and the Denver Police Department. Also testifying against the bill was the head of the League of Women Vipers...er, Voters, and the Colorado Coalition Against Domestic Violence (apparently, their director thinks a piece of paper bearing the letters "Restraining Order" are better protection to a frightened woman than a Glock).

State Rep. Mike May boldly rebutted the claims of the anti-gunners, and other pro-gun committee members joined in on the fun. RMGO Executive Director Dudley Brown and a few other private citizens testified for the bill.

Unfortunately for Colorado gun owners, one member of the committee is on a trip to the Far East (Rob Fairbank), and one was sick (Shawn Mitchell, someone who has routinely supported gun rights issues). While some might claim shenanigans with the two absences, that is unlikely -- the true shenanigans have yet to be revealed.

House Speaker Lola Spradley, who is already running for Governor, appointed a replacement for Fairbank: State Rep. Bob Briggs, a Republican from Arvada. That was a sure sign that things were going wrong for HB1281. Briggs is well known as a big government, lefty Republican.

Remember that State Rep. Bill Sinclair, the term-limited Committee Chair from Colo. Springs, had signed a written pledge to support a Vermont bill. And Rep. Sinclair told HB1281's sponsor, Greg Brophy (who did a bang-up job presenting and defending the bill), that he would vote for the bill.

But House Speaker Lola Spradley had a deal to live up to: there has been growing talk, confirmed by many sources, that the NRA isn't pushing any gun bills in Colorado because it is an election year and they don't want to hurt Republican's reelection efforts, primarily those of the State Senate.

We'll explore this issue fully in another e-mail. But we wanted proof that this was the case, and so Rep. Brophy contacted Dave Gill, VP for the Colorado State Shooting Association, to ask them if they were supporting this bill.

Dave Gill's response was that CSSA "is not going to work on 1281 - I'd support it next year." What this means, along with other evidence, is that CSSA and the NRA agree that gun issues are harmful to Republicans in an election. Once you've agreed to that proposition, you might as well fold up shop and build a throne in the State Capitol to Tom Mauser and Sarah Brady -- now they've got supposed "gun rights" leaders believing their lies.

Back to the House Speaker: Lola Spradley was spotted talking to Rep. Sinclair seconds before the committee hearing. The fix was in.

Rep. Sinclair voted with the solid members of the committee (Dave Schultheis, Mike May, Kevin Lundberg, and Bill Cadman) to pass the bill, but that failed on a 5-5 tie (Republican Bob Briggs voted with the Dems against the bill). Usually, the Chairman would hold the bill over until a member returned later in the week. Rep. Briggs then did the Speaker's bidding and moved to "Postpone Indefinitely" the bill (i.e. kill it).

Briggs joined the Democrats, and rather than sticking to his guns, Rep. Sinclair voted to PI the bill. In other words, he figured he could have his cake and eat it, too. It's entirely too bad that Rep. Sinclair isn't able to run for re-election, as we'd relish letting voters know of his shell game.

That means Vermont/Alaska concealed carry is dead for yet another year.

In our next e-mail, we'll fully explore this deal cut between leadership and the NRA/CSSA. In the meantime, stand by for more fireworks.

And, remember the above names: all politicians are ambitious. When the Speaker begins her run for Governor in earnest, she may just find that gun owners aren't so keen on these kind of political games.

To view House Bill 1281, the Colorado Freedom to Carry Act, go to:

http://www.leg.state.co.us/CLICS2004A/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/868BE7B8AE3DA28287256E1500638B4D?Open&file=1281_01.pdf

To view information about State Rep. Greg Brophy, go to:

http://www.state.co.us/gov_dir/leg_dir/house/members/hou63.htm

To view information about bills in the 2004 Colorado Legislative session, go to

http://www.rmgo.org/billwatch04.htm

To see the Gun Owners of America Fact Sheet on "Why we need concealed carry policies like Vermont's" go to:

http://www.gunowners.org/vtcarry.htm

To see the listing of the safest states in the nation (Vermont is #1) go to:

http://www.statestats.com/dangsaf03.htm

Vermont/Alaska law introduced in Colorado

Jan. 30, 2004 - Today State Rep. Greg Brophy (R-Wray) introduced "The Colorado Freedom to Carry Act", a bill to allow law-abiding citizens to carry concealed handguns without going through the burdensome and expensive process of acquiring a permit.

"The US and Colorado Constitutions ensure our right to keep and bear arms, and in our modern society bearing arms for self-defense is best envisioned by thinking of a woman with a revolver in her purse," said Brophy, a first-term lawmaker from Eastern Colorado. "Alaska and Vermont citizens aren't required to jump through the hoops and hurdles of a bureaucratic and expensive permit system. Colorado legislators need to trust citizens as much as Alaska legislators do."

The measure, House Bill 1281, doesn't get rid of the permit process that was passed in the 2003 legislative session. Instead, it merely specifies that citizens who can legally possess handguns under state and federal law -- by definition, law-abiding citizens -- can carry concealed.

"To those who already have or want a concealed handgun permit, this bill changes nothing," Brophy said. "They may want to keep their permits so they can have reciprocity with other states that recognize Colorado's permitting system. However, many citizens can't afford to pay for the expensive training, fingerprinting and bureaucratic process the 2003 law created. And frankly, they shouldn't have to."

According to Brophy, this bill -- patterned after a law passed last year in Alaska and a long-held policy in Vermont -- will cost nothing to implement and give citizens real freedom while making Colorado safer.

"Because of this long-standing policy, Vermont is always ranked as one of the safest States in the Union," Brophy said. "Criminals don't care about bans on concealed handguns because they are already committing crimes like burglary, rape and murder. This bill will allow more law-abiding citizens to carry concealed while allowing prosecutors to throw the book at those who aren't allowed to carry."

The bill has been assigned to the House State, Veterans, and Military Affairs Committee, and is scheduled to be heard on Feb. 10th, 2004.

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

To view House Bill 1281, the Colorado Freedom to Carry Act, go to:

http://www.leg.state.co.us/CLICS2004A/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/868BE7B8AE3DA28287256E1500638B4D?Open&file=1281_01.pdf

To view information about State Rep. Greg Brophy, go to:

http://www.state.co.us/gov_dir/leg_dir/house/members/hou63.htm

To view information about bills in the 2004 Colorado Legislative session, go to

http://www.rmgo.org/billwatch04.htm

To see the Gun Owners of America Fact Sheet on "Why we need concealed carry policies like Vermont's" go to:

http://www.gunowners.org/vtcarry.htm

To see the listing of the safest states in the nation (Vermont is #1) go to:

http://www.statestats.com/dangsaf03.htm

Abolish the Big Brother Database

Jan. 22, 2004 - Today the Rocky Mountain News published a story about a bill RMGO prompted which gets rid of the statewide database of concealed handgun permit holders, House Bill 1205, by State Rep. Bill Crane (R - Arvada).

Though the story isn't entirely accurate, it does set the stage: the Sheriff's association is going to fight to keep this Big Brother database.

What Rocky Mountain News reporter Peggy Lowe failed to get right is that under current law (SB24) sheriff's can choose whether to forward their permit holder list to CBI (CBI is hiding the identity of sheriffs who have entered permit holders into this database, but RMGO is pushing for that list). According to the new concealed carry law passed in 2003, that database disappears in 2007 (RMGO lobbied hard to remove that database in the 2003 legislature, while NRA and CSSA lobbied to keep it in). RMGO wants it to disappear immediately.

Crane's bill, HB 1205, will only get rid of the statewide database, not the local database (administered by a sheriff). Today's Rocky Mountain News article says it will erase the list from "law enforcement databases". In fact, it erases just one database: CBI's. To determine whether a permit is valid, a LE officer would be able to call the issuing sheriff's office to determine validity (much as it was usually done prior to SB25).

To look at a history of this battle, go to: http://www.rmgo.org/CCIC.html

This year, institutional gun lobbies will have a tougher time opposing this database. In 2003, they (NRA, Colorado State Shooting Association and others) said that this issue jeopardized the passage of a "shall issue" concealed carry bill. In 2004, they don't have that excuse.

What is their dilemma? CSSA and NRA are in a tough spot: on one side is the Sheriff's Association, which wants to keep lengthy records on law-abiding citizens and place them on a database right next to murderers and rapists. And make no mistake about it, the institutional gun lobbies love to curry favor with law enforcement. On the other side is the average permit holder, who doesn't want to be placed in a statewide database with criminals. Though they are likely to sit the fight out and gripe from the sidelines (and give cover to those politicians who vote wrong), where they land on this issue could be telling.

The bill was assigned to the Information and Technology committee, where conservatives hold a strong majority.

What can you do to make this bill pass? Call your State Representative toll free at 1-800-811-7647 (or local at 303-866-2904) today to urge him/her to co-sponsor the bill immediately. The following State Representatives are already signed on as co-sponsors:

Bill Crane (bill sponsor)
Bill Cadman
Ted Harvey
Lynn Hefley
Greg Brophy
Dave Schultheis
Bob Briggs
Lauri Clapp
Kevin Lundberg
Shawn Mitchell
Pam Rhodes
Ray Rose
Jim Welker

If your State Representative's name does not appear on this list, urge him/her to immediately co-sponsor HB1205.

To get a list of State Representatives along with their e-mail addresses (please call them as well -- some legislators don't read their e-mails) and phone numbers, Click here

The following is the text of the Rocky Mountain News article.

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/legislature/article/0,1299,DRMN_37_2594759,00.html

Database in cross hairs

Some want to ditch listing of permits for concealed guns

By Peggy Lowe, Rocky Mountain News

January 22, 2004

A conservative House coalition will try to erase from law enforcement databases the list of those who received concealed-carry gun permits.

The listing requirement - part of last year's concealed-carry law - makes criminals out of law-abiding citizens, the Republican lawmakers contend, saying the list of weapons holders is often mixed with criminal offenders in computer databases.

"I think you shouldn't have to go on a state 'scarlet letter' list for exercising a personal freedom," said Rep. Shawn Mitchell, R-Broomfield.

But a sheriff's group says it will fight the move because the listing of permits helps law enforcement more efficiently keep track of who has the right to carry a concealed weapon.

"The sheriffs are very concerned that changes in a bill we just enacted are being made without any indication that anything is wrong," said Peg Ackerman, a lobbyist for the County Sheriffs of Colorado.

The law, which became effective May 19, requires county sheriffs to issue permits to any law-abiding citizen who is 21 or older, has no felony criminal background, is not under any restraining order and does not have a serious alcohol or drug problem.

The person must undergo a fingerprint criminal background check and take and pass a course on handgun safety.

The person is also barred from carrying the guns where banned by federal law, such as in airports, public schools and public buildings with metal detectors, or in any private building where they are barred.

Before the law was passed last year, each police chief and sheriff in Colorado set his or her own rules for carrying concealed weapons. As a result, the number of permits varied widely from one community to another and record-keeping was a patchwork affair.

This year's bill was introduced by Rep. Bill Crane, R-Arvada, who said he worries that others could get access to the database.

He also doesn't want police to stop anyone just because they have such a permit.

"They will harass a law-abiding citizen who is carrying a weapon," he said. "I have a problem with Big Brother looking over law-abiding shoulders."

Urge Gov. Owens to appeal anti-gun Denver court decision

Shortly after the Nov. 3rd General Election a Denver judge issued a ruling that invalidates much of the 2003 Preemption law passed by the Colorado legislature.

You can read that decision by clicking here.

You can read Senator Mark Hillman's comments on the issue by clicking here.

What it boils down to is a debate over Article XX, Section 6 of the Colorado Constitution, called the "Home Rule" amendment, and whether the state can "preempt" local ordinances.

By his ruling, Judge Joseph Meyer has re-created another problem in Colorado: a patchwork of firearms laws will now once again exist, and citizens' safety will be at risk.

Governor Owens has a few options: he can ignore it, and essentially drop the issue, in which case most of Colorado's larger cities will enact stringent new gun controls (in total defiance to the Colorado Constitutions Article II, Section 13 provision denying them that ability); or, he can instruct the Attorney General to appeal this ruling.

What you can do: For once, we agree with CSSA -- call Governor Bill Owens at 303-866-2471. You can also e-mail him at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it '; document.write( '' ); document.write( addy_text29502 ); document.write( '<\/a>' ); //--> This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

Ask the Governor to appeal the Denver District court judge's ruling on preemption, and to defend SB03-25, which was passed by the legislature to stop the radical gun controls imposed on citizens by cities like Denver.

Whichever way you contact him, make certain to include a Colorado mailing address.

RMGO Gear.com

RMGO Hoodies	RMGO Fleece Watch Cap	RMGO Polo Shirt
RMGO Coffee Mug	RMGO Zip Pullover	RMGO Softshell
Ladies "Liberty's Teeth" RMGO Tee	"Liberty's Teeth" RMGO 100% Cotton Tee	"Liberty or Death" RMGO 100% Cotton Tee

View Past Alert Archives

Search our Site

Search by Tag

2004 News Alerts from RMGO

DPS carry letter

Meyers Court Decision

Ding, dong, the Witch (the Assault Weapons Ban) is dead... for now.

RMGO PAC formed to fight for our rights in Colorado's 2004 Elections

Here Comes the Semi-Auto Ban Again [www.gunowners.org]

Feinstein Planning to Offer Semi-auto Ban as an Amendment Soon
-- Please urge your Senators to oppose this effort

Gun Owners of America
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102
Springfield, VA 22151
(703)321-8585

----- Pre-written letter -----

****************************

S.1805 Monstrosity dead -- RMGO members deserve huge credit

Emergency Alert: Oppose Gun Control -- Kill S.1805

S.1805 has Gun Control attached -- KILL IT!

Act now, or lose your Assault Weapons forever!

Does your sheriff enter you into a Criminal Database?

GOP House Leadership, Bob Briggs, Bill Sinclair kill Vermont/Alaska Carry bill

Vermont/Alaska law introduced in Colorado

Abolish the Big Brother Database

Urge Gov. Owens to appeal anti-gun Denver court decision

RMGO Gear.com

2004 Archives

Get RMGO Gear

Contact Us

RMGO Poll

For self defense ...

Gun Shows

2004 News Alerts from RMGO

DPS carry letter

Meyers Court Decision

Ding, dong, the Witch (the Assault Weapons Ban) is dead... for now.

RMGO PAC formed to fight for our rights in Colorado's 2004 Elections

Here Comes the Semi-Auto Ban Again [www.gunowners.org]

Feinstein Planning to Offer Semi-auto Ban as an Amendment Soon -- Please urge your Senators to oppose this effort

Gun Owners of America 8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102 Springfield, VA 22151 (703)321-8585

----- Pre-written letter -----

****************************

S.1805 Monstrosity dead -- RMGO members deserve huge credit

Emergency Alert: Oppose Gun Control -- Kill S.1805

S.1805 has Gun Control attached -- KILL IT!

Act now, or lose your Assault Weapons forever!

Does your sheriff enter you into a Criminal Database?

GOP House Leadership, Bob Briggs, Bill Sinclair kill Vermont/Alaska Carry bill

Vermont/Alaska law introduced in Colorado

Abolish the Big Brother Database

Urge Gov. Owens to appeal anti-gun Denver court decision

RMGO Gear.com

2004 Archives

View Past Alert Archives

Search our Site

Search by Tag

Get RMGO Gear

Contact Us

RMGO Poll

For self defense ...

Gun Shows

Feinstein Planning to Offer Semi-auto Ban as an Amendment Soon
-- Please urge your Senators to oppose this effort

Gun Owners of America
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102
Springfield, VA 22151
(703)321-8585