View Full Version : Does Colorado have pre-emption regarding gun laws?
Stupid question:
Is there anything stopping, say, El Paso County, from passing a law saying they won't enforce the magazine ban or background check law?
Democrats in Denver passing a state law.
How?
They don't control the local county-level governments.
What's to stop a conservative-minded county from passing laws against the enforcement of a couple of useless, unpopular and unenforceable state laws?
GunsRBadMMMMKay
11-05-2014, 08:24
State pre-emption is the argument against city/county ordinances like say denver bs. Since those arguments have proven valid, I'm thinking we have said pre-emption........and rmgo told me so.
Great-Kazoo
11-05-2014, 08:28
It's Called Home Rule. That's how Denver was able to keep it's mag capacity and assault weapons ban. Even after 1 - 2 court challenges.
HoneyBadger
11-05-2014, 09:32
AFAIK, local governments can always have additional legislation that applies to their jurisdiction, but they cannot ever have less.
Circuits
11-05-2014, 09:57
Colorado has preemption since 2003. Except where state law devolves some decisions, like open carry, all firearms ordinances are supposed to be uniform statewide.
Denver sued to keep their crap and got a Denver District state court to agree. COSC deadlocked with one abstention allowing the lower court's ruling to stand, so Denver got to keep its AW ban despite the preemption law, and the state hasn't reopened the issue since 2004/5.
State law prevents local jurisdictions from passing a majority of firearms laws that are more restrictive than state law (CRS18-12-105.6). A local jurisdiction could pass a less restrictive ordinance, but state law would still apply. A local ordinance that attempted to circumvent a state law would be found invalid by a court, based on the state preemption.
centrarchidae
11-05-2014, 10:34
The fact that it would be irrelevant.
The Board of County Commissioners can pass it.
The Sheriff is independently-elected and doesn 't work for the BoCC. The only control that the BoCC has over the Sheriff is over his budget.
Colorado Springs, Fountain, and Monument Police Departments, Colorado State Patrol, the park rangers at Cheyenne Mountain, the CSU campus police, and the District Attorney's office (in which the prosecutors and investigators are also all peace officers) etc., don't work for either of the above.
The closest I've seen to what I think you're suggesting was a few years ago during the carry-on-college-campus debate. The then-Sheriff of Larimer County, Sheriff Alderden, announced that his jail would not accept any people arrested for CCW on the CSU campus. He never got tested on that point, and ultimately I don't think he'd have won that one in court.
Now, since city police chiefs are not independently elected, I'd be interested to see a city commission order the police chief to do what you're suggesting, But, again, I think it may have already been tried and failed. The one I'm thinking of had something to do with marijiuana enforcement in Telluride, but it's been a while and I'm really hazy on that point.
Stupid question:
Is there anything stopping, say, El Paso County, from passing a law saying they won't enforce the magazine ban or background check law?
If King Obama can selectively enforce laws he likes and not the one he doesn't, what stops any level of government from not enforcing a law?
68Charger
11-05-2014, 20:35
If King Obama can selectively enforce laws he likes and not the one he doesn't, what stops any level of government from not enforcing a law?
What we have right now is selective enforcement- I think the OP is talking about a red "bubble" outside Denver where their BS laws simply don't apply at all...
Great-Kazoo
11-05-2014, 21:03
If King Obama can selectively enforce laws he likes and not the one he doesn't, what stops any level of government from not enforcing a law?
US, that's what stops any government, eventually. OR loose then apply for aid from them. The bleeding hearts would do it.
Bailey Guns
11-05-2014, 21:09
Yes. Colorado has a preemption statute.
29-11.7-101. Legislative declaration
(1) The general assembly hereby finds that:
(a) Section 3 of article II of the state constitution (http://web.lexisnexis.com/research/buttonTFLink?_m=9ea93e1a05cc9a4506fcc31353b64664&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDAT A%5bC.R.S.%2029-11.7-101%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=4&_butStat=0&_butNum=2&_butInline=1&_butinfo=CO%20CONST%20II%203&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=1&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVzt-zSkAl&_md5=0a9cec9edb9ca6f90d263e3861f1ed8e), the article referred to as the state bill of rights, declares that all persons have certain inalienable rights, which include the right to defend their lives and liberties;
(b) Section 13 of article II of the state constitution (http://web.lexisnexis.com/research/buttonTFLink?_m=9ea93e1a05cc9a4506fcc31353b64664&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDAT A%5bC.R.S.%2029-11.7-101%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=4&_butStat=0&_butNum=3&_butInline=1&_butinfo=CO%20CONST%20II%2013&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=1&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVzt-zSkAl&_md5=2327bc32b4a89d56eb6f8ccd92180e85) protects the fundamental right of a person to keep and bear arms and implements section 3 of article II of the state constitution (http://web.lexisnexis.com/research/buttonTFLink?_m=9ea93e1a05cc9a4506fcc31353b64664&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDAT A%5bC.R.S.%2029-11.7-101%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=4&_butStat=0&_butNum=4&_butInline=1&_butinfo=CO%20CONST%20II%203&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=1&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVzt-zSkAl&_md5=02e3fedafab3789fe189d31f0f36f536);
(c) The general assembly recognizes a duty to protect and defend the fundamental civil rights set forth in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this subsection (1);
(d) There exists a widespread inconsistency among jurisdictions within the state with regard to firearms regulations;
(e) This inconsistency among local government laws regulating lawful firearm possession and ownership has extraterritorial impact on state citizens and the general public by subjecting them to criminal and civil penalties in some jurisdictions for conduct wholly lawful in other jurisdictions;
(f) Inconsistency among local governments of laws regulating the possession and ownership of firearms results in persons being treated differently under the law solely on the basis of where they reside, and a person's residence in a particular county or city or city and county is not a rational classification when it is the basis for denial of equal treatment under the law;
(g) This inconsistency places citizens in the position of not knowing when they may be violating the local laws and therefore being unable to avoid violating the law and becoming subject to criminal and other penalties.
(2) Based on the findings specified in subsection (1) of this section, the general assembly concludes that:
(a) The regulation of firearms is a matter of statewide concern;
(b) It is necessary to provide statewide laws concerning the possession and ownership of a firearm to ensure that law-abiding persons are not unfairly placed in the position of unknowingly committing crimes involving firearms.
Bailey Guns
11-05-2014, 21:11
Open carry is one of the few firearm related laws the state allows local jurisdictions to regulate.
RMGOdirector
11-19-2014, 13:46
Colorado's preemption is limited. Thank GUESS WHO (guilty party left out to keep this thread on task) who cut that deal in 2003.
Municipalities can ban guns (open or concealed) in certain cases and specific areas.
Bailey Guns
11-20-2014, 08:28
Yeah, we get it, Dudley. You don't like the NRA. Nevermind they have more clout than you can ever imagine. Your constant bitching and whining about the NRA is why I no longer support RMGO.
Great-Kazoo
11-20-2014, 09:17
Yeah, we get it, Dudley. You don't like the NRA. Nevermind they have more clout than you can ever imagine. Your constant bitching and whining about the NRA is why I no longer support RMGO.
Let it go. Danielson You're a Leaf on the Wind
http://themodernmage.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/mr-miyagi-focus-meme-generator-focus-grasshopper.jpg
Yeah, we get it, Dudley. You don't like the NRA. Nevermind they have more clout than you can ever imagine. Your constant bitching and whining about the NRA is why I no longer support RMGO.
And this is also why potential future RMGO members have shied away from joined (such as myself).
Yhea, after RMGO's tried to sabotage the recall election by endorsing some no-name candidate and smearing Bernie Heripn (I'm sure RMGO received flowers from the Brady Center for that move) I try and discourage as many people from joining and donating to RMGO as I can... That move showed a willful ignorance (I'm being kind) of facts.
O2
[facepalm]
Not again. Do we really need another love/hate thread about RMGO (or NRA)?
RMGOdirector
11-21-2014, 12:53
RMGO has made mistakes in judgement, and I'm certain we'll make more. Mea culpa.
Instead of doing nothing, we immediately helped the Recall Hudak organizers. That effort culminated in the election of one of it's organizers, Laura Woods, to the State Senate a few weeks ago.
RMGO's PAC was Bernie Herpin's biggest donor for his fall election. Fact. You can verify it at the Sec. of State website (you can't link it directly or I would).
My comment about Colorado's limited preemption law is on-target to this thread. It's a fact: open carry is an issue because the 2003 preemption bill was weakened, and it now remains an issue to Colorado's gun owners. And will continue to be so, until we fix it (amongst other things).
Be happy to address other whining, but I'm trying to stay focused on this thread.
RMGO has made mistakes in judgement, and I'm certain we'll make more. Mea culpa.
Instead of doing nothing, we immediately helped the Recall Hudak organizers. That effort culminated in the election of one of it's organizers, Laura Woods, to the State Senate a few weeks ago.
RMGO's PAC was Bernie Herpin's biggest donor for his fall election. Fact. You can verify it at the Sec. of State website (you can't link it directly or I would).
My comment about Colorado's limited preemption law is on-target to this thread. It's a fact: open carry is an issue because the 2003 preemption bill was weakened, and it now remains an issue to Colorado's gun owners. And will continue to be so, until we fix it (amongst other things).
Be happy to address other whining, but I'm trying to stay focused on this thread.
As a former supporter of RMGO, I find your choice of threads to rejoin this community interesting. You chose to answer a question that had already been adequately answered by several others, in such a way as to take a dig at the NRA, as is your standard MO. I, and many others, find it tiresome. I get that your trademark stance is "NO COMPROMISE", and in many instances that is admirable and appropriate. However, condemning EVERYTHING that the NRA does does not make your organization look stalwart, merely contentious. In most cases, life is not all black and white. Most of us have to vote for the candidates we MOSTLY agree with, because the alternatives are candidates we mostly disagree with. Instead of damning everything the NRA does, it would seem to make more sense to work with them on the goals you have in common, and influence them on those you disagree on.
Things you can do to increase support for RMGO:
Stop the "Chicken Little" emails begging for money every other day. We get that there are threats to our rights on an almost constant basis. We'll donate our resources to the organizations that we feel will best utilize them to represent our interests. If you try to be that organization, you'll get those resources.
Stop attacking everyone (from the NRA to the organizers of the Colorado Springs and Pueblo recalls) that don't share your viewpoint 100%. A person or organization that causes divisiveness and spews bile about others with a common goal is commonly referred to as a "bully".
Stop selling our contact information. We all get enough spam without it. We value our privacy as gun owners and citizens.
Provide positive information as well as negative on a weekly or biweekly basis. Fear tactics are a hallmark of the Left, and quickly become both tiresome and ineffective. A little positivity can go a long way towards generating forward momentum.
http://forums.androidcentral.com/attachments/android-central-lounge/98608d1388181376t-my-mother-law-so-fat-m92eq9.jpg
[Shake]
RMGOdirector
11-21-2014, 15:07
The reason I haven't "rejoined" (never left -- and have given the forum money to keep it going) in the conversations here is because I was, er, kind of busy. Those pesky election things.
Donating to RMGO is voluntary. And to have an impact on the public policy process in our state, it takes a metric butt ton of money (whether I like it or not).
Your suggestions were read and noted. Clearly you've never run a non-profit (at least, successfully). But I'll leave it at that.
We do what we feel called to do to win for our rights. And won't change that.
Your suggestions were read and noted. Clearly you've never run a non-profit (at least, successfully). But I'll leave it at that.
We do what we feel called to do to win for our rights. And won't change that.
I appreciate that you are receptive to my comments. I'm not asking you to change your goals, as I share most of them, merely asking that you advance them in a way that unites, rather than divides your audience, as the opposition is surely going to unite in their efforts to derail you. The enemy of my enemy may not be my friend, but there is no reason to arbitrarily treat them as an enemy as well.
It is possible to command without being popular, but to be a leader requires the implicit support of your followers.
hurley842002
11-21-2014, 15:32
I appreciate that you are receptive to my comments. I'm not asking you to change your goals, as I share most of them, merely asking that you advance them in a way that unites, rather than divides your audience, as the opposition is surely going to unite in their efforts to derail you. The enemy of my enemy may not be my friend, but there is no reason to arbitrarily treat them as an enemy as well.
It is possible to command without being popular, but to be a leader requires the implicit support of your followers.
Well said!
RMGOdirector
11-21-2014, 16:52
RMGO has a very loyal following. The only way to avoid negative comments is to do nothing (and even then, you'll get negative comments by the astute followers who see you are taking money to do nothing).
I agree with the cries for unity, and always have. I WISH we all agreed on the same goals as well as the strategy to attain those goals. Some don't.
The default setting on the gun issue is that unless you upset the apple cart, the NRA gets it's way. And that's what has happened in Colorado, until about 1994-95.
RMGO isn't letting that happen now.
If you're involved in Colorado politics at any level above voting, and talk with ANY of the pro-gun conservatives in the capitol (those with proven records), you'll find out which group has "clout" in Colorado.
Great-Kazoo
11-21-2014, 17:32
RMGO has a very loyal following. The only way to avoid negative comments is to do nothing (and even then, you'll get negative comments by the astute followers who see you are taking money to do nothing).
I agree with the cries for unity, and always have. I WISH we all agreed on the same goals as well as the strategy to attain those goals. Some don't.
The default setting on the gun issue is that unless you upset the apple cart, the NRA gets it's way. And that's what has happened in Colorado, until about 1994-95.
RMGO isn't letting that happen now.
If you're involved in Colorado politics at any level above voting, and talk with ANY of the pro-gun conservatives in the capitol (those with proven records), you'll find out which group has "clout" in Colorado.
Unfortunately your groups clout has a negative effect when it comes to lawmakers. They turn their hearing OFF when you get involved.
FWIW: I have called AND clicked on the UNSUBSCRIBE numerous times, YET still get e-mails from you.
Bailey Guns
11-21-2014, 19:12
The NRA is a national pro-gun organization. I don't recall much in the way of gun control passed since the 94 AWB expired in 2004. Gun owners in Colorado have taken it in the *** recently which is really surprising given all the "clout" that RMGO has with the state legislature.
Why is it you just can't NOT be an ass?
Your suggestions were read and noted. Clearly you've never run a non-profit (at least, successfully). But I'll leave it at that.
Way to keep it classy.
Bailey Guns
11-21-2014, 21:30
Wait just a darn minute... You're really not talking about yourself, are you?
Great-Kazoo
11-21-2014, 22:47
Wait just a darn minute... You're really not talking about yourself, are you?
Hbar ? He does that when there's a room full of people.
RMGOdirector
11-22-2014, 17:40
Shots from anonymous monikers. Cute.
Multiple houses? Yeah, that luxury condo in Windsor is the same as a Barbados beachfront property.
What I make outside of RMGO/NAGR is none of your damn business.
Two malcontents whining on a forum...not sure why I bother.
Bailey Guns
11-22-2014, 17:43
Then don't bother. No one will miss your badmouthing of the NRA anyway.
RMGOdirector
11-22-2014, 18:06
I confirmed the origin of Colorado's weak preemption law. Bad mouthing? Yep...I always bad mouth those who push gun control, both individuals and organizations. Always will.
And 3 guys (anonymously) claiming "you're an ass" for doing so won't stop me.
Aloha_Shooter
11-22-2014, 18:30
The 3 guys you're whining about are hardly anonymous. They're well known on this board. I won't do to you what you do to the NRA simply because I'd rather spend my energies against the the Bloomberg puppets and Feinstein parrots but if you're really interested in the battle for the Second Amendment, you should consider the points raised about how counter-productive some of your actions have been.
Bailey Guns
11-22-2014, 19:34
Bad mouthing? Yep...I always bad mouth those who push gun control, both individuals and organizations. Always will.
And 3 guys (anonymously) claiming "you're an ass" for doing so won't stop me.
I'm not claiming you're an ass for badmouthing those who push for gun control. There are plenty of other obvious reasons.
SenHolbert
12-01-2014, 20:03
"Unfortunately your groups clout has a negative effect when it comes to lawmakers. They turn their hearing OFF when you get involved."
Nope. That is incorrect.
I'll give credit to the NRA for not blinking during the 2013 running of the Democrat's slate of citizen-controll bills. They did drop the ball when they launched robo calls in districts represented by state Representatives who were opposed to all of those bills, yet the NRA message script cast doubt with constituents about that fact, which was unhelpful. I let the NRA lobbyist know how much I didn't appreciate that move. We learn from our mistakes.
I exist in a workplace where people disagree with me, so please understand that I don't need anyone here to experience some revelation moment and then agree with me. It isn't a matter of opinion, but fact, that there is one organization in Colorado that is dedicated to defending the Second Amendment without compromise and which devotes - by far - the most financial and talent resources to winning elections in favor of candidates who will not compromise on the Second Amendment. That group is Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, led by Dudley Brown and the related RMGOPAC. State legislators who are serious about running pro-Second Amendment legislation do not turn off OUR hearing when RMGO gets involved.
Infighting will not get us anywhere.
Pro-2A is on our side plain and simple. Our efforts and energy should be directed towards constructive efforts. If that means not donating to a certain organization then so be it, but arguing will not help things. And this part of the forum is searchable on the interwebs and any part of it can be used against us by the folks who wish to take our rights away. So I suggest we conduct ourselves accordingly.
Shall not be infringed folks. I care how we get back to how the founding fathers intended.
Thanks for chiming in Sen Holbert, your insight is always valued here.
Dudley, How does the RMGO plan strategy, which fights do you see coming up soon, and how far down the road does the RMGO look. Are there any areas where the RMGO and NRA could partner up when it comes to Colorado?
thanks in advance
Sen. Holbert, I appreciate all of your efforts on our behalf, and you provide a perfect example of what I am talking about. I don't necessarily agree with your stance on 100% of the issues, but I find enough common ground to engage with you and appreciate your position. Dudley's unwillingness to cooperate with the NRA under any circumstances(even when they endorse the same positions he does) is not an asset to the fight. It merely gives our opposition yet another crack to drive a wedge into. Add to that his tendency to attack ANYONE that disagrees with him in the slightest(as evidenced by his response to my comments), and you have someone whose effectiveness is compromised, particularly when dealing with legislators that may be on the fence with a given vote or issue. Hostile negotiations using threats and fear tactics are NOT an effective strategy for building a long term coalition of support.
Thanks for your support,
Jim Fleischaker
Gun Owner, Voter
RMGOdirector
12-01-2014, 21:23
RMGO and NRA avoided any friendly fire in Colorado (not in other states) this year. And for the first time in (I'm not sure how many) years, the NRA didn't endorse a bad incumbent against a better challenger in the Primary election. RMGO did what it does best -- win primaries. And then we went on to win two generals in net-gain (and marginal) Senate seats, in Woods and Neville.
How does RMGO plan out our strategy? Our general strategy is laid out on our website: www.rmgo.org/strategy and we actually sponsor activist classes. You won't hear any nonsense in those classes about "politics being the art of compromise", or how to be liked in the Capitol. It's about how to scare the wits out of politicians (one simple way: threaten their reelection), and to replace anyone not 100% committed on the Second Amendment with someone like, well, Sen. Holbert here.
RMGO usually plans 4-6 years out. But always in 2 year increments.
RMGO already has it's game plan laid out for 2015-16 session. Lots to work on.
RMGOdirector
12-01-2014, 21:25
"Pro-2A is on our side plain and simple."
If you're talking about Tim Knight's group, the only thing I saw them actually do this election cycle was in the primary, where they endorsed (c-4's can't actually endorse, so they run the risk of the left filing a suit against them) two candidates (both with dubious credentials), and lost. Badly.
They didn't do anything in the general.
Shall not be infringed folks. I care how we get back to how the founding fathers intended.
Dudley, I just was stating to everyone basically that we are all in this fight together.
Pro-2A folks are on our side. We are all VERY serious and emotional about our rights, and we should not let all that sway us from the cause. Infighting will not get us anywhere, It is wasted energy.
RMGOdirector
12-01-2014, 21:34
you have someone whose effectiveness is compromised, particularly when dealing with legislators that may be on the fence with a given vote or issue. Hostile negotiations using threats and fear tactics are NOT an effective strategy for building a long term coalition of support.
That's kind of the crux of the disagreement, isn't it? You think we win by being (politically) nice to people on the fence.
But history proves you only give them reason to question your resolve. And if an on-the-fence politician thinks you're "a softie" the next time they vote on a controversial issue, they think you'll endorse them because you drank beers together, or because you shot guns together -- regardless of their vote.
You've GUARANTEED they'll vote against us.
No, no thanks. We'd rather have them fear us (politically speaking for the humor impaired) than like us.
RMGOdirector
12-01-2014, 21:38
Dudley, I just was stating basically that we are all in this fight together.
Pro-2A folks are on our side. We are all VERY serious and emotional about our rights, and we should not let all that sway us from the cause. Infighting will not get us anywhere, It is wasted energy.
We certainly agree on some of that. However, I think it's vital to have a solid discourse on strategy and tactics.
We certainly agree on some of that. However, I think it's vital to have a solid discourse on strategy and tactics.
And that is why there are organizations like the NRA, RMGO, Illinois State Rifle Association, Wisconsin Muzzleloading Association, etc, etc. that specialize in organizing the voices of the citizens. Folks like you are good at what you do.
But it does not serve anyone any good for any of these associations to outright attack or criticize each other, or for individuals to attack these organizations in public undermining our cause. That is all I was trying to say in my first post. See? I suck at trying to get my point across. That is why we have you folks.
RMGOdirector
12-02-2014, 10:27
But it does not serve anyone any good for any of these associations to outright attack or criticize each other, or for individuals to attack these organizations in public undermining our cause.
If organizations and/or their leaders can do ANYTHING without criticism, where does that leave us?
Sorry, but there has to be a forum for discussion.
We agree that minor differences should be overlooked, and maybe discussed in private.
But maxing out -- and really, saving -- Harry Reid in 2010 isn't a minor difference.
Or claiming "We should accept universal Brady Registration because it's going to happen SOME day."
Sorry, if "unity" requires us to be silent about those issues, count RMGO and NAGR out of that Unity Tour.
This thread was about preemption. And my point was the limited nature of Colorado's preemption law, and how that happened. I'll still stand by that statement.
RMGOdirector
12-02-2014, 10:29
I might add that if you disagree with RMGO/NAGR's strategy, or endorsement of a candidate by our PAC, I expect to hear from them. I'm happy to answer for our actions, give our logic, etc.
PugnacAutMortem
12-02-2014, 11:25
Thank you Dudley.
For continually reinforcing how mistaken I was for ever giving you a dime of my money.
Like Jim, I too have clicked unsubscribe and sent requests to be taken off of all mailings and emails. I still get them. I even moved, and I still get them.
Stop selling our info. Seriously.
RMGOdirector
12-02-2014, 11:55
Stop selling our info. Seriously.
RMGO and NAGR don't sell info.
Our data never leaves our hands. We've done deploys for others (who do the same for us, in an effort to expand membership). It's called "growing the army."
If you e-mail office@rmgo.org we can "blacklist" you, so our servers cannot send to your address.
RMGO and NAGR don't sell info.
Our data never leaves our hands. We've done deploys for others (who do the same for us, in an effort to expand membership). It's called "growing the army."
If you e-mail office@rmgo.org we can "blacklist" you, so our servers cannot send to your address.
>>we can "blacklist" you, so our servers cannot send to your address.<<
Being somewhat familiar with email scripts used for mass mailings, I understand your point about the "blacklist" feature, but no matter how I have tried to explain that to folks it always came across to them (and me too, candidly) as offensive. You are essentially telling them you are going to retain their email address even though they asked to be removed.
Just a thought - but maybe take a point from this and simply follow the wishes of those who make the effort to be removed from your email system and REMOVE them. It is no more difficult that using the blacklisting feature and it would go a long way toward honoring those people's wishes who no longer want to receive your mailings. In this regard, the Europeans with their 'Right to be Forgotten' legislation have it right.
FWIW
RMGOdirector
12-02-2014, 15:21
REMOVE them.
Since I don't know anyone's email from this forum, I can't have them removed. If the interface isn't doing it, feel free to email office@rmgo.org and request to be BLed, and the tech guys in our office will handle it (I certainly don't know how).
Chad4000
12-03-2014, 11:23
same team guys... same team
same team guys... same team
That's what I was trying to say.
Chad4000
12-03-2014, 12:18
That's what I was trying to say.
Yeah I agree with you for sure...
SenHolbert
12-04-2014, 08:23
Remove? Unsubscribe? Black list? Those options are so last millennium. Why would I rely on someone else to do something for me?
On the other hand, it's quite easy to create email filters. I wish that I had an app to apply such filtering to my snail mailbox. If I did, then I wouldn't waste one second telling marketers what mail to not send me. Thankfully, I do have such control over my email Inbox.
Freedom. Liberty. Personal accountability. Efficiency. Control. Peace of mind.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.