Major Issues Colorado's Center on the Brady Registration Check
Colorado is one of the states that, in response to the federal Brady Law, created its own Brady -- what we term "Baby Brady". This Baby Brady system was created 3 times in Colorado: once in 1995 after the federal law passed, once through Executive Order by Governor Bill Owens, and most recently in the 2000 legislative session by Senate Bill 00-24.
When Congress first heard of the Brady Bill, most Republicans and many Democrats balked at the idea. Gun owners in America weren't likely to accept de facto gun registration inherent in a bill that forced firearms purchasers to undergo a background check and created a database.
In fact, prior to 1995, support or opposition to Brady was the number one litmus test issue for every gunnie, organization, and even the NRA. Anyone claiming to support the Second Amendment was literally required to oppose the Brady bill.
Shortly before the 1994 General Election, Brady and HCI decided it was time to pass their scheme. They only had one problem: the US Senate did not have enough votes to shut down a hold (a threatened filibuster) from N.C. Senator Jesse Helms. A cloture vote -- which shuts down debate and breaks a filibuster -- takes 60 Senators, meaning 41 Senators can stop the legislation.
The NRA knew these numbers quite well and was still publicly opposed to Brady, though many Beltway insiders still suggest the NRA was ready to cave at any point.
The bill was dead -- but the NRA cut the deal to resurrect it.
LaPierre's NRA contacted then-Minority Leader Bob Dole and signaled the NRA's surrender on the issue. The NRA would accept the "Insta Check" system because Brady was inevitable, and Helms would be asked to remove his "hold." In the Congressional poker game, the NRA folded before anyone even had a chance to assess their hand.
Gun Owners of America (GOA) and a number of real pro-gun organizations told the NRA that this system, the National Instant Check System (or NICS) would register gun owners by the millions, giving gun-banners the rope they needed to hang us.
Brady's NICS, much touted by the NRA to this day, is the reason some states have other forms of gun control. Virginia, long considered one of America's most pro-gun states, passed a "one-gun-a-month" law (or gun rationing) for one simple reason: the system set up by Brady, implemented in Virginia with NRA assistance, would handle the information. One-gun-a-month had failed in Virginia in the past, primarily because it was too expensive to implement. Once the NRA's Brady system was in place, one-gun-a-month was easy and relatively cheap. Again, thanks, NRA.
Baby Brady sounds like something less cumbersome than the federal check. To many gun shop owners/FFL's, this seemed like a no-brainer: under Baby Brady they made a local call to the Colorado Bureau of Investigation (CBI) rather than a federal agency (the FBI), and they talked to "local boys." The FBI calls this a state "point of contact" system.
However, it's not just a Colorado background check. Using a state agency, like CBI, puts gun owners in double jeopardy. They are not only run through the federal NICS check, but they also go through a much more extensive and often less accurate state level check.
Some less-than-ardent gun rights supporters will argue that the FBI and local background check officials do not keep the names, but that view is naive, at best. If you are concerned that government knows too much about its citizens, especially in the area of firearms, you must conclude that two levels of government obtaining information about who purchased a firearm is more troublesome than one level.
When establishing a Baby Brady law, the residents of that state are being subjected to two background checks, and therefore two chances -- we believe it a certainty, but for the sake of argument we will call it a chance -- of registration. Baby Brady's are an expansion of gun control, albeit to a local level.
After the initial Brady Law passed Congress, some states rushed to pass their own version (their very own bouncing Baby Brady) , averting a waiting period (in some cases, though others wished to establish that gun control as well) and setting up their own bureaucracy to check their citizens.
Colorado was one of those states to create their own system. From 1995 until December 1998, Colorado operated its own system. But under federal law, it had to pass new authorization, since after November 1998 Brady expanded to cover not only handguns but any Class 1 firearms (shotguns and rifles included).
In the 1999 Colorado Legislative Session, Senate Bill 58 was offered at the behest of the NRA and their state level lackeys, the Colorado State Shooting Association (the NRA's state affiliate) and the Firearms Coalition of Colorado (now essentially defunct. with members that number in the dozens). The bill would reestablish the Baby Brady system in Colorado under the "permanent Brady" provisions of federal law .
On the day of SB58's hearing in the Senate State Affairs committee, the NRA, CSSA and FCC lobbyists were strutting around like turkeys, congratulating each other on being so important and reveling in the fact that they would impose their ideas on every gun buyer in Colorado.
There was only one problem: RMGO staff had done its homework, and had talked to the conservative members of that committee in advance. Once shown the undeniable facts, these legislators couldn't support SB58. The bill was postponed indefinitely -- killed -- on Feb. 4, 1999, much to the chagrin of the assembled "gun lobbyists".
In July 1999, Colorado Governor Bill Owens decided he didn't like what the legislature had decided. Instead of running legislation
to change the law, he signed an "Executive Order" to reinstate the Baby Brady program. Though this action was almost certainly unconstitutional, and angered a great number of legislators -- who saw this as the governor's end-run around the legislature. The Office of Legislative Legal Services issued a memo, declaring this EO wasn't legal.
Like every gun-grabber, Gov. Owens used a local tragedy as his excuse for implementing gun control. That summer a deranged man named Simon Gonzales purchased a firearm and murdered his three daughters before dying in a gunfight with local police. Gonzales had a restraining order on him at the time of purchase, which the FBI check did not find (FBI records now collect that information, but didn't at the time), prompting Owens to claim that Gonzales would not have killed his daughters had he not been able to purchase the firearm. How it can be claimed that a deranged man, bent on killing his own progeny, could not have committed the act of murder without one of the thousands of methods available (Gonzales was a truck driver, and could have driven his innocent children over a cliff) is beyond us. In any event, public policy shouldn't be made in the shadow of personal tragedy.
Though RMGO would have liked to file suit against the governor, a lack of funds and a near-certainty of another bill passing when the next legislature convened prohibited that action.
And that is what happened: in the 2000 legislative session Senate Bill 125 was offered and passed. This time Bill Owens wasn't taking any chances, and couldn't be caught in an ambush.
The bill, however, was amended to include even more anti-gun provisions.
Far from the American standard of innocent until proven guilty, this provision is denying gun purchases in record numbers.
Colorado's judicial records are often flawed and incomplete, and only rarely do they contain disposition (disposition is the final outcome of the case; guilty, not guilty, dismissed, acquitted, or deferred judgment or sentence). Lazy judges and district attorney's don't take the time to enter that information in the database. This is consistent with the attitude of most prosecutors and law enforcement -- "everyone's a perp [etrator]" -- and, incidentally, goes along quite well with the NRA's much-touted get-tough-on-crime measure, Project Gestapo.
Conservatives in the Senate joined with RMGO to fight the guilty until proven innocent provision, but liberal Republicans (all of whom had "A" ratings from the NRA to give them cover) joined with Democrats to keep this vile provision in the bill.
Though their actions are often inexplicable, their motivations are clear: many gun owners, especially those who fashion themselves as the leaders, like to be "shakers and movers". They want to be invited to cocktail parties at the Governor's mansion, and they love the technocratic thrill of knowing more about gun laws than their shooting pals. Often, many of these "leaders" simply don't oppose gun controls unless those controls would bar them from purchasing or using firearms.
"We [NRA] would be willing to consider some sort of private Gun Show background checks if it doesn't have bureaucratic stuff." Glen Caroline, NRA-ILA, Director of Grassroots Division during a lecture 2/15/07.
NRAwol's critical view of the NRA and Brady -- right on the money
