Planned Colorado gun legislation??

[hatidua]

While there have been snippets of info leaked about what Feinstein has planned for January, are there any details as to what the folks in Colorado government have on their wish list?

[spqrzilla]

Lots. Have you not seen the other threads?

[Sharpienads]

Chris (Rep. Holbert) said that when writing a bill, there is attorney client privilege. So until the bill is brought to the floor we may not know for sure.

[Milt]

'Attorney client privilege' Against the public? Sounds a bit adversarial to me. Are they not supposed to be our representatives?

[StreetDoctor]

'Attorney client privilege' Against the public? Sounds a bit adversarial to me. Are they not supposed to be our representatives?

+1 sounds like a hot load of b.s. to me.

[Ghosty]

Yeah does sound shady. If he fears for his family's safety, maybe he should arm himself, lol! Could Feinstein done this if her bill wasn't leaked? Sorry, I'm not familiar with what exactly is allowed when writing a bill at State or National level. Never took Poli-Sci.

[OneGuy67]

'Attorney client privilege' Against the public? Sounds a bit adversarial to me. Are they not supposed to be our representatives?

It has more to do with the drafting of the language of the bill than anything else. The legislators work with in-house counsel in order to draft legislation that should be legal and have the appropriate language in it do deal with whatever legal issues that might arise; where in the C.R.S. it is supposed to go; fiscal components that are required, etc. All that is done between the individual legislator and that attorney and could be considered attorney-client privilege, until such time that legislator introduces that bill for consideration.

[Milt]

OneGuy67,

Nice excuse; but I don't see why ANY of that should be hidden from public view. It is not as if the legislator(s) in question are about to be charged with a crime - though perhaps they should be...

[OneGuy67]

OneGuy67,

Nice excuse; but I don't see why ANY of that should be hidden from public view. It is not as if the legislator(s) in question are about to be charged with a crime - though perhaps they should be...

No excuse; simply an explanation of the where and why.

Are you arguing that attorney-client privilege should be secure everywhere for everyone, except for those in public office, or in government? How far do you extend that?

[Milt]

If you are supposed to be doing the people's business, there should be total transparency while so engaged. Only in your private affairs should you have an expectation of privacy. So, yes, I am, "arguing that attorney-client privilege should be secure everywhere for everyone, except for those in public office, or in government." No one forces people into public office; the opposite seems to be the case - they seek it eagerly. Perhaps a bit more transparency would discourage those with anti-Liberty agendas.

The people should have access to all the gory details of the process by which they are governed; anything less is tyranny.

[HBARleatherneck]

If you are supposed to be doing the people's business, there should be total transparency while so engaged. Only in your private affairs should you have an expectation of privacy. So, yes, I am, "arguing that attorney-client privilege should be secure everywhere for everyone, except for those in public office, or in government." No one forces people into public office; the opposite seems to be the case - they seek it eagerly. Perhaps a bit more transparency would discourage those with anti-Liberty agendas.

The people should have access to all the gory details of the process by which they are governed; anything less is tyranny.

he wants to know, because he is a cop. between lawyers and unions, they arent like us.

[Milt]

I have long suspected that those who desire coercive power over others, as opposed to those who are content to rely upon free value-for-value exchange and/or non-coercive persuasion to get what they want, have some sort of mental illness. In this category I include the great majority of politicians, bureaucrats and, unfortunately, policemen. The American ideal of the 'Peace Officer' has been largely discarded in favor of authoritarian 'law enforcement', to the detriment of Liberty.

I am not 'cop bashing' here, I am merely pointing out that those who are certified by the state as 'Peace Officers' should act as such instead of as petty tyrants. Our cops and sheriffs' deputies should be the first line of ordered Liberty's defense, not its enemies.

[OneGuy67]

he wants to know, because he is a cop. between lawyers and unions, they arent like us.

At least in your eyes, apparently. Not a union guy; don't really like them. I am part of the FOP, primarily for the litigation coverage, not for anything else.

Any communication between an attorney and another can be considered privileged; if I go speak to the local DA about a case I'm working on, that communication stays between him/her and I and is not for the public knowledge. While the case may go forward for prosecution and at which time, the reports are released for public consumption, the fact I had a private conversation with the DA isn't necessarily part of the case file.

[hammer03]

Are the attorneys (in the case of the bill drafting) working for that politician or for the people?

Who is paying their bill?

Then who is the "client" in the situation, that is extended the confidentiality?

[DavieD55]

I have long suspected that those who desire coercive power over others, as opposed to those who are content to rely upon free value-for-value exchange and/or non-coercive persuasion to get what they want, have some sort of mental illness. In this category I include the great majority of politicians, bureaucrats and, unfortunately, policemen. The American ideal of the 'Peace Officer' has been largely discarded in favor of authoritarian 'law enforcement', to the detriment of Liberty.

I am not 'cop bashing' here, I am merely pointing out that those who are certified by the state as 'Peace Officers' should act as such instead of as petty tyrants. Our cops and sheriffs' deputies should be the first line of ordered Liberty's defense, not its enemies.


Yup. +1

[Mountain Man]

Most law Enforcement are good people doing an hard job. Most people never bother or get the opportunity to get to know them. Libs like to claim law enforcement love gun control. Its a sham. Agency heads that are appointed get their jobs threatened by mayors to support gun control excetera while the rank and file don't support gun control.


I have long suspected that those who desire coercive power over others, as opposed to those who are content to rely upon free value-for-value exchange and/or non-coercive persuasion to get what they want, have some sort of mental illness. In this category I include the great majority of politicians, bureaucrats and, unfortunately, policemen. The American ideal of the 'Peace Officer' has been largely discarded in favor of authoritarian 'law enforcement', to the detriment of Liberty.

I am not 'cop bashing' here, I am merely pointing out that those who are certified by the state as 'Peace Officers' should act as such instead of as petty tyrants. Our cops and sheriffs' deputies should be the first line of ordered Liberty's defense, not its enemies.

[Kraven251]

I think the point being made, is how is there client-attorney privilege when the proposed law should be public domain. It feels like they are trying to limit access to the content so that they can drop a 200 page document on the table that no one will read and yet vote on, without a dissection of the potential legislation by the constituents.

[Dave]

I think the point being made, is how is there client-attorney privilege when the proposed law should be public domain. It feels like they are trying to limit access to the content so that they can drop a 200 page document on the table that no one will read and yet vote on, without a dissection of the potential legislation by the constituents.

Gotta pass it to see what is in it? [fail]

[Ronin13]

I think the point being made, is how is there client-attorney privilege when the proposed law should be public domain. It feels like they are trying to limit access to the content so that they can drop a 200 page document on the table that no one will read and yet vote on, without a dissection of the potential legislation by the constituents.
That's where it needs to change... I read somewhere that the 250 page bill that "averted the fiscal cliff" was dropped with 3 min to go on the clock... No way in hell anyone could read 250 pages in 3 min, thus we got screwed. We need to have a law, or rule, or whatever (not sure how to enforce this) to where a proposed bill has to be released to the public after approval to be seen, and must have ample time for review by legislators and their staff prior to going up for vote.

[OneGuy67]

I think the point being made, is how is there client-attorney privilege when the proposed law should be public domain. It feels like they are trying to limit access to the content so that they can drop a 200 page document on the table that no one will read and yet vote on, without a dissection of the potential legislation by the constituents.

It doesn't work that way in state politics. I would explain it in detail, but it would be easier for anyone interested in knowing more to do their own research, starting at the state website and reviewing last years legislative process and follow a bill through its evolution.