Amending the CO constitution after HB 1224

[HB 1224 is a lie]

Hello,
I just introduced myself in the new member forum and wanted to provide some details for your consideration and feedback. Putittothepeople.com is attempting to amend the CO constitution and override HB 1224 in the Nov 2014 election.

I'm trying to get the word out. We are going to need a lot of help with our goal of gathering 140,000 signatures to get this on the 2014 ballot. It is going to take money to print the petitions and a lot of hours collecting signatures from voters across the state.

http://putittothepeople.com has the current text and some background as well as FAQs. The lawyers are going to give the text a makeover, I'll post the final text as soon as it is available.


I would love your feedback and I'll answer questions as best I can in this thread.

[spqrzilla]

I think its a very risky idea and don't know that I'll support it.

[DHC]

I think its a very risky idea and don't know that I'll support it.

Risky in what way? What do you see as the downside to taking a run at this?

[Caithford]

I think what he means is the risk of failing says to the legislators that they were right, and that Coloradans DO support gun control. I agree, it's not a "no risk" attempt.

[spqrzilla]

Yep. The media will give a lot of free advertising to the gun control advocates. The OP talks about raising money for signature gathering, but if we can't generate many millions in ad buys for a good TV ad in favor of the initiative, we'll get creamed at the polls.

Then the gun control activists will have a major electoral vote victory to trumpet and reverse a lot of momentum we have.

Very risky idea, and I'm far from convinced to support it.

[HB 1224 is a lie]

spqrzilla,
There is risk in every bold move. We feel that there needs to be action as soon as possible while the issue is "hot". The expectation is that once we have the signatures to get this on the ballot, it will become a national issue. Money will come in from all over the country on both sides of the debate. The money for ad buys will come.

We need to amend the way things are currently pushed through the legislative body on party line votes. If our rights are going to be restricted, it needs to be my popular vote. This is about limiting legislative powers well as 2A rights.

[BPTactical]

Read my sig line guys.....I would much rather lose to a vote of the people than a bunch of arrogant bought and paid for legislators.

[Hound]

I have not had too much time to think about this but a few issues:

1 how is this retroactive?
2 why so limited. Why spend all the time, effort and money to just hit the mag issue. Why not just make it for ALL gun laws? This is a waste of effort in its current form.
3 if you leave this to just popular vote we are eventually screwing ourselves. Colorado is becoming more urban by population. We enjoy a balance due to the fact that congress is based on geography where rural tends to win. There are more Democrats but they are diluted because they are more densely packed into places like Denver and Boulder. People were pissed about Bush, which is why even places like the Springs elected an a$$hole like Morse. 2014 will likely see that reversed but if you put an Amendment in based on statewide popular vote....., eventually we will lose and it will be impossible to reverse.

[losttrail]

While I like the idea, I think there are some issues as others have stated.

1. We don't even know if we can oust enough Democrats in 2014 to gain control of either house or the governorship.
2. As stated above, a failure to succeed would be ammo for the opposition to say "See, we were right."

At this point, I do not see a trend reversal in voters nor a shift from blue to red. (That has always pissed me off that the conservative side was labeled with Red.) I think that with Colorado becoming a santuary state and pot-head friendly, the trend towards socialism will continue rather than reverse.

This could be very risky, but our Founding Fathers risked everything.

More info needed. Please keep us posted as to how this grows.

[MarkCO]

Wow! Never thought I would see the day that so many COAR-15 members have been defeated and running for the hills. Must be the liberal influence or second hand pot smoke.

What happened to doing the right thing because it is the right thing? Many people sacrificed all for our freedoms and now we (the collective) are scared we might not win a vote!?!?

I am not saying the proposed language is the best, but like so many have said before...we need to shed the Dudley tactics and infighting and do what is right because it is right.

[spqrzilla]

Wow! Never thought I would see the day that so many COAR-15 members have been defeated and running for the hills. Must be the liberal influence or second hand pot smoke.

What happened to doing the right thing because it is the right thing? Many people sacrificed all for our freedoms and now we (the collective) are scared we might not win a vote!?!?

I am not saying the proposed language is the best, but like so many have said before...we need to shed the Dudley tactics and infighting and do what is right because it is right.

You don't understand my point at all. High flown rhetoric is BS, we need strategic thinking, and well aimed proposals.

Making the issue as narrow as the capacity of magazines is a mistake tactically as well, because so few people will see the issue as directly affecting them.

[MarkCO]

I understand your point, and it has some validity. I just don't know how we all get on the same page. We need ONE concise clear message, on that I fully agree with you.

[newracer]

Are any lawyers working with you?

[Ronin13]

Yeah when folks a little more well versed in the law than I say it's a bad idea, I'm inclined to think it's a bad idea. A for effort, but if it ends up either 1) giving the opposition more momentum, and 2) defining more than it should (what's wrong with just electing folks who understand that line "shall not be infringed" doesn't have any room for "interpretation"?) then it's probably a bad idea.

[RblDiver]

Agreed that it seems a bit narrow.

[Rabid]

what's wrong with just electing folks who understand that line "shall not be infringed" doesn't have any room for "interpretation"?
I would like the hear from a constitutional lawyer about any unintended consequences of this. However i see this as a second line of defense if we get anything like the current crop of jokers making laws again. I would much rather loose to fellow Coloradans and know its time to move on then having politicians push their agenda on me. If they want to kill the 2A with a thousand cuts i see no reason not to start cutting back.

[Shiro]

Don't lose sight of the importance of voting out as many anti-gun congress-members as you can, this is a more permanent solution to the issue, but will be harder to accomplish