Ritter wants gun owners to pay....

[Graves]

http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_14250327
Gun fee foes go off half-cocked
Legislators are missing the mark by opposing a bill that would force gun owners to pay a mere $10.50 for background checks.

By The Denver Post
Posted: 01/23/2010 01:00:00 AM MST

We understand the anxiety some gun owners feel when hearing the word "fee." We also understand that even the most innocuous issues surrounding gun ownership have the tendency to burst into a fiery political battle.

But we think Gov. Bill Ritter's modest proposal to impose a $10.50 fee on gun purchases in order to recoup the cost of criminal background checks, currently paid for by the state, is both reasonable and necessary.

If the governor's proposed fee went beyond covering the actual costs of obtaining a background check, we too would oppose the proposal.

If we felt that the fee was a backdoor tax, we too would be concerned.

But if Colorado's teachers have to pay for their own background checks, it only seems fair that gun owners do likewise.

Ritter proposed the fee last year to help shore up a massive, $1.5 billion state budget shortfall. Budget-balancing measures must first go to the Joint Budget Committee, and if the panel gives it a unanimous thumbs up, the bill is sponsored with the whole committee's blessing, Post reporter Tim Hoover wrote in Friday's newspaper.

But Rep. Kent Lambert, R-Colorado Springs, and Sen. Al White, R-Hayden, have opposed the idea in the budget committee and used the highest forms of political rhetoric in doing so, comparing the fee to a "poll tax" or "an onerous burden."

The fee is neither onerous nor a poll tax. A $10.50 charge will not inhibit anyone's Second Amendment rights, though it will help alleviate some of the budget crush.

The small fee would have generated around $557,000 over four months in the current budget year and around $1.6 million in a full year.

Now its fate is unclear.

"I have a feeling it's not going anywhere. It's just a hot potato," said JBC chairman Rep. Jack Pommer. "It's frustrating because I think it's unfair to all the people, like teachers, who do pay for their own background checks."

As Colorado deals with crippling budget shortfalls, it would be unfortunate if a common-sense fee was to fail because of needless political wrangling.

And if Republicans want to upend budget fixes recommended by the Democratic governor, they should continue to come up with some of their own ideas. And Democrats should take them seriously.

This tighter-than-tight budget needs bipartisan solutions.

(Comments block at the bottom of the page)

Letters to the Editor:
openforum@denverpost.com

Typical Demmy gimmie gimmie bullshit.... Boy I can't wait until he's voted out.

[Birddog1911]

Maybe if those assholes in Denver would stop spending like drunken sailors this sort of thing wouldn't be necessary!

[jerrymrc]

What the writer fails to take into account is that for most of us we already pay $20-$30 for that background check. This is just plain creep.

Sometimes I wish they would say what is on there minds. Why start at $10.50? Just put it out there that ya want a $100 TAX on every firearm sold and be done with it.

I for one can see the hand on the temperature knob, I don't need to feel the heat to know it is coming. ;)

[GreenScoutII]

What these Ass-Clowns in Denver need to remember is two things.

1. We already pay for the background check. Typically $15-20 bucks where I live.

2. THEY wanted the Goddamn background checks in the first place, not us... We shouldn't have to do the stupid thing to begin with, but thats a subject for another thread... If THEY insist on the BG check, it should be done at NO COST to the purchaser.

Times are tough enough already, how much more do they think they can squeeze us????

[jerrymrc]

Times are tough enough already, how much more do they think they can squeeze us????

How much ya got in that paycheck?

Years ago I had an issue with the IRS. I think in the back of my mind that some people in power would just like us to hand it all over to them so THEY can do the right thing for us "little people".

[palepainter]

Fukem all.

[DD977GM2]

[Rant1][Rant1]FUCK Ritter and those cocksuckers. We pay already along with the shortfall.....well that was their fault not only due to outrageous spending but the taxes they imposed on big oil in the state. Big oil pulled out after the taxes were passed. I was layed off because of this. We had to lay off 40 guys because of those fuckers.

SO FUCK YOU RITTER FOR YOUR BULLSHIT. You had a shitload of money coming in from big oil and decided to stomp on our dicks there. How does it feel now motherfucker[Rant1][Rant1][Rant1][Rant1][Rant1]

[theGinsue]

Times are tough enough already, how much more do they think they can squeeze us????

jerrymc is absolutely correct. These folks want to take EVERYTHING from us so that we'll HAVE to rely on them for every day-to-day need and they can take care of us the way they think we should be taken care of. Of course, that means thy'll get to decide waht we can do and how we can do it.

We already pay a minimum of $0.40 of tax for every dollar we earn. If the .gov would learn to quit with the BS programs and creating hundreds of un-needed offices, they'd have enough $ already. It's sort of like if I hired a maid to clean my house. I can't afford it, but, hey, why not - I'll just live beyond my means and staqrt charging my employer more $$ for it.

[sniper7]

get rid of the background checks. problem solved all the way around and it is bi-partisan. reduced .gov spending, no background check fees that gun owners have to pay.

It is a constitutional right to own a firearm, not to be a teacher. There is nothing in the 2nd amendment about background checks or paying fees to own guns.

I come from a family of teachers...all of them...except me. Their simple one time background check fee is nothing. we do pay for out background check for a CCW. Also, taxes from gun sales go directly to the state to preserve the outdoors and keep our lands free which everyone gets to enjoy.

Fuck Bill Ritter, Fuck the Denver Post, and Fuck anyone who thinks we need to pay another dime to buy a gun. enough is enough.

[cebeu]

A more appropriate headline:

The Denver Post Editorial staff goes off half-assed
The Denver Post Editorial staff is missing the mark by supporting a bill that would force gun owners to pay additional fees for background checks.


If the governor's proposed fee went beyond covering the actual costs of obtaining a background check, we too would oppose the proposal.

If we felt that the fee was a backdoor tax, we too would be concerned.
Pure bullshit! Pacifying verbiage selected to temper their biased stand on the bill.



But if Colorado's teachers have to pay for their own background checks, it only seems fair that gun owners do likewise.
Red Herring, cheap & weak political statement (Jack Pommer) and poor journalism by the Denver Post.

I’ll give the left one minor win here, true, it is not onerous but that is not the point. A Poll tax? Close enough.

I have a better solution for the leftist Editorial board. If you feel so strongly that this is a solution of consequence to a budget shortfall we’ll meet you half-way. We’ll pay the additional $10.50 per check if you agree to pay an additional $10.50 for a “value & integrity tax” for every editorial you publish, every day, week, month and year for the duration of this imposed added tax. Fair? If we (gun purchasers) can help generate “around $557,000 over four months in the current budget year and around $1.6 million in a full year” what would your new tax contribution generate? After all, the teachers pay for a background check, editorialists should have a fee for a “value and integrity" as your staff proves is needed yet again here. It’s only fair since you are selectively exercising your right to free-speech while generating revenue. I don't think that is onerous or a poll-tax either.

[newracer]

If it was similar to teachers and I only had to pay it one time I would be for it. It would be worth the $10.50 to never have to wait for CBI again.

Of course Ritter could have saved the state some money by signing the bill that would allow CCW holders to not need a background check.

[cmailliard]

Times are tough enough already, how much more do they think they can squeeze us????

While I agree that this tax is stupid as there already is a fee for background checks, the argument used here is just stupid.

If time are tough you probably should not be buying guns. If you can afford to buy a $500 Glock, $1000 AR-15, or $500 shotgun you can AFFORD to pay this $10.50 tax.

Like I said the tax is a stupid idea, just don't make it about affordability.

[Jumpstart]

Yet another reason why I am a former Democrat. BTW did anyone see Glenn Beck's special on Friday? Eye opening...

[trlcavscout]

jerrymc is absolutely correct. These folks want to take EVERYTHING from us so that we'll HAVE to rely on them for every day-to-day need and they can take care of us the way they think we should be taken care of. Of course, that means thy'll get to decide waht we can do and how we can do it.

We already pay a minimum of $0.40 of tax for every dollar we earn. If the .gov would learn to quit with the BS programs and creating hundreds of un-needed offices, they'd have enough $ already. It's sort of like if I hired a maid to clean my house. I can't afford it, but, hey, why not - I'll just live beyond my means and staqrt charging my employer more $$ for it.

+1

If these dumb ass's would make it like Nevada where you dont have to do a background check everytime if you have a ccw like they tried to do, that would help. BUT WE SHOULDNT HAVE TO APPLY FOR OUR RIGHTS ANYWAYS.

[Ah Pook]

Don't firearms owners have the option to pay for a one time background check? It's called CCW permit.

How often do teachers have to pay for their background checks?

Looks like another "sin" tax.

[Moviestar]

Maybe if those assholes in Denver would stop spending like drunken sailors this sort of thing wouldn't be necessary!

this made me LOL

[Aloha_Shooter]

A more appropriate headline:

The Denver Post Editorial staff goes off half-assed

But that wouldn't be news ...

[GreenScoutII]

While I agree that this tax is stupid as there already is a fee for background checks, the argument used here is just stupid.

If time are tough you probably should not be buying guns. If you can afford to buy a $500 Glock, $1000 AR-15, or $500 shotgun you can AFFORD to pay this $10.50 tax.

Like I said the tax is a stupid idea, just don't make it about affordability.


Oh, my argument is stupid is it? Perhaps you missed my point...

In tough economic conditions, additional fees, taxes, and surcharges will only exacerbate a consumer's reluctance to buy the items these fees are levied on..

Granted, an additional $10.50 on a $1000 dollar AR is just a drop in the bucket, but we already pay sales tax PLUS the existing fee for the background check. Enough is enough. Obviously, the gov is trying to tax us into prosperity. I think we all know how well that works.

[mutt]

So if the state supposedly absorbs the cost of the background check, why the hell am I paying a $30+ fee every time I buy a firearm, not to mention sales tax and excise tax? Bullshit. These bureaucrats never have enough. If the cost is so expensive, do away with the background check. I highly doubt it ever stopped a 'bad guy' from getting his hands on a gun. Problem solved on multiple fronts.

[Troublco]

While I agree that this tax is stupid as there already is a fee for background checks, the argument used here is just stupid.

If time are tough you probably should not be buying guns. If you can afford to buy a $500 Glock, $1000 AR-15, or $500 shotgun you can AFFORD to pay this $10.50 tax.

Like I said the tax is a stupid idea, just don't make it about affordability.

When you add up all of the extra crap Ritter has saddled us with, like the extra fees we pay with our vehicle registrations, it quickly becomes about affordability. It doesn't take very long to become expensive when you start adding it up.
Everyone needs their vehicles, so whether we like it or not we pay his damn fee. With this one, the only people who care are those of us who get hit with it even though many pay for the checks already, even though the folks who wanted the whole checks system are the same ones who want us to pay for it now. As soon as they get us paying the $10.50, they'll find some reason to jack it up, as much and often as they can. It can easily be turned into a way to regulate gun purchases, much the way they did with the machine gun tax when it was enacted ($200 was a LOT then).
So they want us to pay for the checks that they made mandatory. Why do we not hear about prosecutions of people who are caught trying to illegally buy guns? Has anyone heard of how many legitimate purchase denials there are in a month? A year? How many of those are prosecuted? How many are convicted? They just committed a felony, yet we hear NOTHING. Could it be that the results of this system that they now want US to pay for are IGNORED because the real reason for its existence was to put yet another chink in legitimate gun ownership? Or could it be that the system doesn't produce results? Because I don't know about you guys, but I can count on one hand the number of prosecutions I've heard about from this system. And frankly, it pisses me the hell off that apparently this sort of felony is ignored while the ATF spends time and effort going after legitimate dealers and harassing them. [Mad] Why aren't the Brady bunch and all of their ilk crowing about the number of prosecutions from people caught trying to illegally buy guns? They talk about how many purchases are prevented, but never about how many are ultimately reversed on appeal (big surprise there, eh?) or how many people are convicted based on their attempt to purchase illegally. And with the 4473, THEY HAVE PROOF ON PAPER! It would appear to me that, much like the pigs in Orwell's Animal Farm, some Felonies are more equal than others.

(Sorry, wasn't trying to hijack the thread. Just makes me mad!)

[RMGOdirector]

RMGO has been tracking this issue for many years, and defeated it a number of times. Understand that this tax on gun owners was first suggested by former State Senator Ron Teck (a RINO from Grand Junction), but we lit him up pretty good (and killed it).

Understand that, if we didn't have a Baby Brady (i.e. a state-level Brady Check) this wouldn't be an issue.

From http://www.rmgo.org/brady.shtml


What Baby Brady does

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.


How Colorado got its "Baby Brady"

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 (http://www.atf.treas.gov/firearms/bradylaw/q_abrady.htm)" 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".


http://www.rmgo.org/images/owens1.jpg
Colorado Governor Bill Owens at a gun control organization's news conference. Owens signed an illegal executive order to force a Baby Brady law on Colorado citizens, even though the legislature had already defeated it.

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 (http://www.state.co.us/gov_dir/govnr_dir/ospb/budget/factsheets/publicsafety/fc-instacheck.htm)" 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.


Guilty until proven innocent


http://www.rmgo.org/images/Arnold.jpg
NRA "A" rated State Sen. Ken Arnold (R-Westminster) was the creator of the "guilty until proven innocent", which is denying thousands of law-abiding citizens the right to keep and bear arms.

Senate Bill 125 was amended by Sen. Ken Arnold (R-Westminster) so that CBI would deny a purchase based on arrest, not disposition of the case. To gun owners, that means that if you were charged with any offense that would deny you a firearm, you would be denied a purchase until you could prove that the case did not result in a conviction.

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 (http://www.rmgo.org/Gestapo/index.shtml).

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.

Why "gun groups" fashion the chains that bind us

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.


Additional Resources

NRAwol's critical view of the NRA and Brady -- right on the money (http://www.nrawol.net/Brady.html)

ATF's Frequently Asked Questions about Brady and NICS (http://www.atf.treas.gov/firearms/bradylaw/q_abrady.htm)

[Marlin]

Just expect more... He's a lame duck now, absolutly no accountability now.. Plus, He's one of the holier than thou "guns are bad" types,, as are the journalistic hacks at the post.. Don't be surprised if they call for a couple more before Nov.

[GunTroll]

I might have missed something in my short time in CO. I only bought a few firearms while I was there. Lost them all since leaving[Tooth]. Some of you say "we" already pay for the background check. $20-30 range. I didn't know this. Can someone clarify?

On a side note.......I know live in TN and this state does a $10 background check every time you buy. It bothers me so much! CBI just like TBI just forwards your info of to the FBI for a background check right???? Soooo the $10 or $10.50 background check just goes to justify someones really not so important job. A job created to just suck money from the masses is a waste! Especially if no real benefits are to be had with the creation of the job. The middle man syndrome.

[kidicarus13]

http://www.seobook.com/images/Boiling-Frogs.jpg

[Irving]

They can't really prosecute people from trying to buy a gun and being denied though. Look at the number of reversals. That just shows that it is often wrong. Besides, not everyone knows the laws as well as we do and they might just not know.

[Troublco]

They can't really prosecute people from trying to buy a gun and being denied though. Look at the number of reversals. That just shows that it is often wrong. Besides, not everyone knows the laws as well as we do and they might just not know.

I'm not saying to prosecute everyone who's denied. I'm saying, those who are legitimately denied ARE COMMITTING A FELONY.

If it's a legitimate denial, based on a previous conviction that makes that person ineligible to purchase a firearm (meaning they're either a convicted felon or had a domestic violence conviction), then it is a felony to attempt to purchase a firearm. Period. If some other class of felon offered themselves up on a plate doing something illegal, I doubt the system would miss a chance to grab them.

Maybe if we held their feet to the fire regarding accuracy, or they were required to review denials to see WHY that person was denied, they'd be able to actually do something about something. At this point what use is this system? Especially since thanks to Sen. Arnold, even arrests are reason for denial. Wow, no chance someone could be arrested for some bogus reason, is there?

Thanks for all the info, Dudley. Color me signed up as a new RMGO member.

[Irving]

I guess we'll have to disagree then, because I don't think that back ground checks should exist. I also think that if you are deemed ready to be let out of prison, that you should have your full rights. I think the Domestic Violence thing is bullshit as well. You don't even have to do anything but make a girl upset to get a domestic violence charge against you.

[Troublco]

I guess we'll have to disagree then, because I don't think that back ground checks should exist. I also think that if you are deemed ready to be let out of prison, that you should have your full rights. I think the Domestic Violence thing is bullshit as well. You don't even have to do anything but make a girl upset to get a domestic violence charge against you.

I agree with you. The whole background check system is a farce. And the domestic violence thing is a giant crock of cow dung. It's just another tool to be able to chip away at our rights. I agree with the prison thing also. If you are truly rehabilitated and ready to rejoin society, your rights should be restored. But then the system would have to actually work, too.

It ticks me off that they throw these laws up, and then enforce or ignore them as they choose. This is one of those perfect world sort of things. If the laws we had actually had to be enforced, and there was some recourse, legislators would be a little more careful before they just pass some new piece of feel-good crap.

And maybe pigs would be classified as aviators, too.

[BPTactical]

This is a State issue, not a C&C of Denver thing.
You knew this kind of crap was going to come from Ritter though.
Predictable almost in fact
I am a State employee just short of being able to retire.
When he made his announcement in regards to not running again the sentement of myself and co-workers was pretty much on the same page:
He is now free to do most anything he wants and without much fear of recourse.
If I recall correctly he wanted to start charging for CBI's a while back and there was a pretty loud rattle from the citizens and it faded away.
Now he wont care about the flak he may catch.
I think that if the Dems could have there way they would fee and tax just about everything firearm related out of existence.
Afterall-Unarmed citizens are Subjects.
Just what they want........


There may be an upside to this though.
If the Democratic candidate for Governor (Dickinpooper) supports this measure it will not help him in the least and be good fodder for an opponent to use against him before the 10 elections.

[robsterclaw]

Have to get used to it. The douchebag is pushing through the sugar tax next week. We'll see how this goes. The beverage industry is delivering 1,000's of hand written letters to legislators before they vote on this.

All these people who thought it was ok to tax the hell out of cigarettes are now learning that it was the start of taxing individual items. Now it will be chips, sugar, candy bars. Next will be fast food and gun stuff. Soon we'll be effectively taxed 60+% of what we earn.

[Irving]

My parents just ran a background check on someone. I saw the CBI report and everything. Guess how much it cost them? $6.85.

FUCK YOU Bill Ritter.

[newracer]

Yep, here it is https://www.cbirecordscheck.com/CBI_New/CBI_newIndex.asp

[Colorado Luckydog]

I guess we'll have to disagree then, because I don't think that back ground checks should exist. I also think that if you are deemed ready to be let out of prison, that you should have your full rights. I think the Domestic Violence thing is bullshit as well. You don't even have to do anything but make a girl upset to get a domestic violence charge against you.

X2 If you paid your debt and finished your parole, you should have gun rights back. If you are a free man, you should have the right to bear arms! WITH NO FUCKING BACKGROUND CHECK!!

I'm glad that no one here is drinking the koolaid!!

Fuck them assholes. Double fuck 'em!! How much do they think they can take before there is resistance.

[DOC]

If they didn't blow all our money on gay bridges for hippy pedestrians to cross I-25 instead of using that ugly bridge 40 yds away. Instead of charging gun owners to pay for it. Maybe they could charge all the dirty hippies to cross it since its shit like that all the money is going to. I still think we should pay for the burrials of all those mysterious drug dealers that passed during the DNC in 2008. They are still being found floating in the platte once a week.
ITS NOT A BIG ENOUGH RIVER TO DISPOSE OF BODIES HIPPIES. Its not like Frisco bay where you just weigh down the body and be done with it.
There is a learning curve for all those transplants I guess. But I think the post is going to never learn that gun owners are not going to take any erosion of our rights. No matter how much they hate them and seem to get through life without them.