Maybe we gun owners should think like pot heads.

[DOC]

The reason the state CCW permitless law failed is because we left it up to the State Reps to handle it and they are scared little girls and referred it to committee to die while keeping their hands clean of any responsibility for killing it. The potheads did the same thing and in the end left it up to the people to decide if they wanted regulation or freedom. When they passed the medical MJ law it was left up to the voters to decide and they chose to be free. Then again with the latest constitutional amendment to make weed no more regulated than booze the people spoke up again voted to be free.
I think if we left it up to the people again and had them vote for a constitutional amendment for freedom to protect ourselves with firearms that legislators would like to control it would pass. Leaving up to them seems like something they were hired for but unless they can get on TV and look like they are doing something good like saving a school or something they aren't going to do it. They think it will cost them votes but being a callow bunch does that already.
I for one will support an amendment to colorado state constitution for firearm freedom. I just need to know what I should do?
How does one get something like this started?
Maybe we can team up with the hippies and ask them what they did to get their amendment on the ballot? And I will stop calling them skinky hippies if they help too. It will redeem them in my eyes.

[Storm]

Here in Colorado we can get constitutional amendments on the ballot somewhat easily.

Its how pot got legalized. I believe the people of Colorado are on our side. This would prove it.

Why not draft an amendment that says something along the lines of;
The State of Colorado is barred from banning any firearm for any reason.

Sure it'll have to be gussied up with all that lawyerese and flowery official type language (and probably have something in there about not superseding federal law ... I'd love to nullify everything back to the '34 NFA with this but its more important to get it passed).


All you have to do is get the requisite number of signatures on a petition and it gets on the ballot ... if we could get full RMGO and NRA support that would help it pass.


Dudley? This something you kids at RMGO might be interested in spearheading?

You know, over the past week, I've heard some crazy a** schemes strategies to try and oppose or get around both imminent Federal and State Legislation, but this, seriously is brilliant! No, I really mean that.

[Dave]

This is a great idea, and I would definitely vote for it. Only problem I see is if a well funded opposition formed all they would have to do is paint everyone behind this bill as gun toting whackjobs that want to arm crazy people and criminals. Or Chickenblooper trying to do something to keep it from being implemented.

[Kraven251]

Well, I say adopt the liberal mindset on this...I don't like the fact it was defeated, so let's keep proposing it until people get tired of seeing it and just push it through.

I disagree with your reality and have inserted my own. --Mythbusters

[DOC]

This is a great idea, and I would definitely vote for it. Only problem I see is if a well funded opposition formed all they would have to do is paint everyone behind this bill as gun toting whackjobs that want to arm crazy people and criminals. Or Chickenblooper trying to do something to keep it from being implemented.

Did you think they were going to do anything less? After Colimbine there was a ground swell of support even though it looked impossible. And it took some time but got CCW in our state.

[KiloDeltaDelta]

I think there should be some language in the bill (which I plan to discuss with weld county officials as a county law after the first of the year) that reads something like...
"Any person of a given household residing within the borders of our jurisdiction must leagally own a firearm for their own personal defense."

This would create a couple of positives as far as I'm concerned. The first one is that anyone who does not appreciate the value of a gun on hand would move back to... say... California (LOL). Second, any citizen who is not leagally entitled to posess a firearm would need to move to say...Kalifornia (LOL).

Kevin

[Flatline]

I think there should be some language in the bill (which I plan to discuss with weld county officials as a county law after the first of the year) that reads something like...
"Any person of a given household residing within the borders of our jurisdiction must leagally own a firearm for their own personal defense."

This would create a couple of positives as far as I'm concerned. The first one is that anyone who does not appreciate the value of a gun on hand would move back to... say... California (LOL). Second, any citizen who is not leagally entitled to posess a firearm would need to move to say...Kalifornia (LOL).

Kevin

You want to force people to have to buy guns, or will the government be providing these. This sounds a bit like forcing people to have health insurance. Just because something might be good for people doesn't mean you should force them to do it.

And honestly some people probably shouldn't be forced to own guns. What about people who have violent felonies, shall we allow them to have guns or force them to move out? What about people with deep mental health issues(I'm not trying to start a debate, so assume some crazed homicidal maniac who has made open statements), should they be forced to have guns or move out?

[avandelay]

You want to force people to have to buy guns, or will the government be providing these. This sounds a bit like forcing people to have health insurance. Just because something might be good for people doesn't mean you should force them to do it.

And honestly some people probably shouldn't be forced to own guns. What about people who have violent felonies, shall we allow them to have guns or force them to move out? What about people with deep mental health issues(I'm not trying to start a debate, so assume some crazed homicidal maniac who has made open statements), should they be forced to have guns or move out?

Check out Kennesaw, GA. Although at the city/town level instead of the county level, they have a law similar to what was suggested. It was more intended to ensure the right to firearms than anything, but they do give some good reasoning...see below from wikipedia -

Gun law

In 1982 the city passed an ordinance [Sec 34-21]^[18]

(a) In order to provide for the emergency management of the city, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore.
(b)Exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who suffer a physical or mental disability which would prohibit them from using such a firearm. Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony.

Gun rights activist David Kopel has claimed that there is evidence that this gun law has reduced the incident rate of home burglaries citing that in the first year, home burglaries dropped from 65 before the ordinance, down to 26 in 1983, and to 11 in 1984.^[19] Another report observed a noticeable reduction in burglary from 1981, the year before the ordinance was passed, to 1999. A 2001 media report stated that Kennesaw's crime rates continued to decline and were well below the national average, making citizens feel safer and more secure.^[20] Later research claims that there is no evidence that [the law] reduced the rate of home burglaries [in Kennesaw],^[21][22] even though the overall crime rate had decreased by more than 50% between 1982 and 2005.^[23]
The city's website^[24] claims the city has the lowest crime rate in the county.

[Flatline]

Check out Kennesaw, GA. Although at the city/town level instead of the county level, they have a law similar to what was suggested. It was more intended to ensure the right to firearms than anything, but they do give some good reasoning...see below from wikipedia -

Gun law

In 1982 the city passed an ordinance [Sec 34-21]^[18]

(a) In order to provide for the emergency management of the city, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore.
(b)Exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who suffer a physical or mental disability which would prohibit them from using such a firearm. Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony.

Gun rights activist David Kopel has claimed that there is evidence that this gun law has reduced the incident rate of home burglaries citing that in the first year, home burglaries dropped from 65 before the ordinance, down to 26 in 1983, and to 11 in 1984.^[19] Another report observed a noticeable reduction in burglary from 1981, the year before the ordinance was passed, to 1999. A 2001 media report stated that Kennesaw's crime rates continued to decline and were well below the national average, making citizens feel safer and more secure.^[20] Later research claims that there is no evidence that [the law] reduced the rate of home burglaries [in Kennesaw],^[21][22] even though the overall crime rate had decreased by more than 50% between 1982 and 2005.^[23]
The city's website^[24] claims the city has the lowest crime rate in the county.

So because they do something somewhere else we should do it here?

[Cthulhu]

I like this! Where do I sign?