Maybe we gun owners should think like pot heads.

[Zundfolge]

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?

[blacklabel]

We'd have to include something along the lines of not observing any federal bans either.

[Flatline]

An amendment allowing concealed carry without a license like Wyoming or Vermont would probably pass easily in Colorado while strengthening gun support in the state.

[blacklabel]

An amendment allowing concealed carry without a license like Wyoming or Vermont would probably pass easily in Colorado while strengthening gun support in the state.

They made a solid push for it recently and it wasn't passed.

[SuperiorDG]

http://delivery.tacticalrepublic.com/w/1.0/ri?ts=1fHNpZD01Mjk5fGF1aWQ9MTE4OTc2fGFpZD02NzIxMTh 8cHViPTg0OTZ8bGlkPTk3OTg0fHQ9MXxyaWQ9OTlhNWQ5MmEtM DcxOS00NWQyLTlkYWQtNzk0OGM5MTY0NWIwfG9pZD0xNjQwNnx ibT1CVVlJTkcuTk9OR1VBUkFOVEVFRHxwYz1VU0R8cD0yMDAwf GFjPVVTRHxwbT1QUklDSU5HLkNQTXxydD0xMzU2ODIzMjk3fHB yPTIwMDB8YWR2PTg1NTM&cb=70940880

Perhaps this would work:

South Carolina Lawmaker Reintroduces Bill to Exempt State from Federal Gun Ban 12/28/12 (http://www.guns.com/2012/12/28/south-carolina-lawmaker-reintroduces-bill-to-exempt-state-from-federal-gun-ban/) | by S.H. Blannelberry (http://www.guns.com/author/blannelberry/) 15 6384

South Carolina Sen. Lee Bright (R-Spartanburg) has reintroduced a bill that would exempt any firearm, accessory or ammunition manufactured and kept within the borders of the Palmetto State from federal regulations.

Invoking states rights under the 9th and 10th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, Bright’s legislation – known as the ‘South Carolina Firearms Freedom Act’ – states:
“A personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in South Carolina and that remains within the borders of South Carolina is not subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of Congress to regulate interstate commerce.”
“Congress has not expressly preempted state regulation of intrastate commerce pertaining to the manufacture on an intrastate basis of firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition,” the bill adds.
http://www.guns.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/marbut_graph1.jpeg (http://www.guns.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/marbut_graph1.jpeg)Firearms Freedom Act

The ‘Firearms Freedom Act’ (http://firearmsfreedomact.com/) movement has its origins in Montana, where a gun maker by the name of Gary Marbut got sick and tired of the federal government’s overreach with respect to his business. After closely examining the Constitution, in particular the commerce clause, Marbut conceived the Firearms Freedom Act in 2009.
“This is really about state’s rights and federal power rather than gun control,” Marbut told the Wall Street Journal in a 2011 interview. “There is an emerging awareness by the people of America that the federal government has gone too far, and it’s dependent on a really weird interpretation” (for more on this, click here (http://www.guns.com/2011/07/23/montana-man-fights-feds-on-gun-control/)).
The Montana FFA is now being reviewed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. Yet, despite the uncertainty of its fate, at least 7 other states have passed a clone version of the bill as its made its way through the courts.
Sen. Bright had previously introduced the SC FFA during the 2011-2012 legislative session. However, it died after being referred to a committee.
http://www.guns.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/opinion.jpeg (http://www.guns.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/opinion.jpeg)Sen. Lee Bright

Given recent events, the elementary school shooting in Newtown, CT, and the subsequent calls for gun control at the Federal level (Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s promise to renew the Assault Weapons Ban), Bright sees support for the bill gaining momentum.
“A lot of people are showing a lot of interest in it. We’ve got a better chance now than we had previously,” Bright told SHJ.com (http://www.goupstate.com/article/20121227/ARTICLES/121229850/1027/opinion?Title=Bright-reintroduces-bill-to-exempt-guns-made-in-SC-from-federal-laws&tc=ar), adding that, “There are a lot of folks that are against the Second Amendment and want to restrict people’s guns rights, and this is just one they seized.”
South Carolina is home to several gun manufacturers and firearms-related businesses, most notably FN Manufacturing. The Columbia-based operation produces an array of different products, from handguns to barrels for .50 caliber machine guns (for more on this, click here (http://www.fnmfg.com/capabilities/Gun%20Barrels/)).
Again, just to clarify, if the SC FFA were to be signed into law, with few exceptions, none of FN’s products would be subject to federal law provided they were stamped with “Made in South Carolina” (a requirement of the bill) and kept within the state’s borders.
Sounds like a good deal, right?
State lawmakers will reconvene in Columbia on Jan. 8. Let’s hope they give the FFA some serious consideration.

[hammer03]

Awesome, I like it.


Of course, we should put something in there along the lines of "shall not be infringed"....

[Bailey Guns]

An amendment allowing concealed carry without a license like Wyoming or Vermont would probably pass easily in Colorado while strengthening gun support in the state.

Really? It's been defeated at least twice that I can remember in recent years in the legislature.

[Bailey Guns]

Of course, we should put something in there along the lines of "shall not be infringed"....

I don't know. That's pretty ambiguous language and hasn't worked out so well the first time it was tried.

[Flatline]

Really? It's been defeated at least twice that I can remember in recent years in the legislature.

Has it been attempted as an amendment or a change to the statutes?

[Bailey Guns]

I don't know if it's been attempted as a state constitutional amendment...I don't think it has. But, yes, as a statutory change it's been defeated at least twice.

[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] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia#cite_note-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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia#cite_note-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] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia#cite_note-20) Later research claims that there is no evidence that [the law] reduced the rate of home burglaries [in Kennesaw],[21] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia#cite_note-isbn0-472-03162-7-21)[22] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia#cite_note-isbn0-415-17087-7-22) even though the overall crime rate had decreased by more than 50% between 1982 and 2005.[23] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia#cite_note-23)
The city's website[24] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia#cite_note-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] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia#cite_note-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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia#cite_note-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] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia#cite_note-20) Later research claims that there is no evidence that [the law] reduced the rate of home burglaries [in Kennesaw],[21] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia#cite_note-isbn0-472-03162-7-21)[22] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia#cite_note-isbn0-415-17087-7-22) even though the overall crime rate had decreased by more than 50% between 1982 and 2005.[23] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia#cite_note-23)
The city's website[24] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia#cite_note-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?

[avandelay]

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

No, I was merely showing where what was suggested has been done before with an 'out' for those that don't wish to participate.

[KiloDeltaDelta]

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?


Of course you would need to purchase your own gun, I wouldn't want the government telling me what kind of gun i need to own (or cannot own).
You're wrong. Its not like forcing health insurance at all. If you don't want to own and posess a gun, you don't have to live here. However, if you don't want to participate in forced health insurance, you don't have an option at all, we're all part off the health care program now. There is a huge difference in local & federal government.

If you read my original post, lawful citizens would be the posessors of said guns. If you're not "lawful", I personally don't want you here to walk the streets with my family.

My point is this...

Unless you have been under a rock, you can surely recognize that the opposing party will stop at nothing to further thier political agenda. We must act where we can while we can to promote and protect our liberties and the constitution.

Kevin

[Milt]

While I do have reservations about the specific proposals made here so far, we should constantly press the victim disarmament crowd with our own initiatives. Thus, they will be the ones forced to 'compromise' in the direction of increased Liberty, rather than us 'compromising' away our rights, as has been the case from the birth of the Republic.

The more radical the proposal, the better it will be. It is way past time to use the Fabian dynamic against the collectivists, instead of stupidly standing by while they rope-a-dope us with that tactic. And, don't forget, it's 'for the children', especially in light of the kindergarten massacre that one teacher, other school staffer or even a visiting parent could have prevented had their fundamental right to self defense not been illegally (a statute that violates the Constitution or exceeds the legislature's authority is NOT a law) stripped from them.

[centrarchidae]

You're wrong. Its not like forcing health insurance at all. If you don't want to own and posess a gun, you don't have to live here.

What about conscientious objectors? Pacifists? Quakers?

And why should someone need to jump through your hoops to live in his own home? Have you bought and paid for his house?

[Milt]

centrarchidae,

Come on, you should know better than to bring (gasp!) PRINCIPLES into a political discussion - how quaintly Jeffersonian...

[Irving]

KiloKiloDelta: Your idea is no good.

[Flatline]

Of course you would need to purchase your own gun, I wouldn't want the government telling me what kind of gun i need to own (or cannot own).
You're wrong. Its not like forcing health insurance at all. If you don't want to own and posess a gun, you don't have to live here. However, if you don't want to participate in forced health insurance, you don't have an option at all, we're all part off the health care program now. There is a huge difference in local & federal government.

It is exactly like forcing health insurance. Your want to force someone to buy something because you think it will benefit society/themselves/yourself/whatever. The reality is that you want to reduce others liberty through your authoritarian desires.

And by the way, telling someone that if they don't like they can leave does not preserve their liberty. I heard that there are some countries south of the border that don't have public health care or mandatory insurance and you can go ahead and leave based on your logic. Does that feel like liberty to you?


If you read my original post, lawful citizens would be the posessors of said guns. If you're not "lawful", I personally don't want you here to walk the streets with my family.

How do you plan to make sure that only lawful citizens have guns and the rest leave? On that note how do you suggest that the government ensure that all lawful citizens posses said firearm? What will you do with those who are not in compliance? Deportation or fines?

Do you think that we should just ship out all of our felons? What about if all the other states enact the same legislation? What do you suggest then?
The reality is that there are people who were at one period were 'unlawful' who walk the streets everyday. Some haven't changed a single bit and shouldn't be in society, however many have reformed their lives and have earned their liberty. Or maybe you think that someone who was caught with one tab of x should get a life sentence?


My point is this...

Unless you have been under a rock, you can surely recognize that the opposing party will stop at nothing to further thier political agenda. We must act where we can while we can to promote and protect our liberties and the constitution.

Kevin

You are suggesting that you can impart legislation that would violate a person's freedom of choice and create a government that regulates further the aspects of daily life. The does not promote nor protect our liberties or the constitution but instead does the opposite. Your trying to tell people how to live their lives just like the opposing party that you accuse of doing so.

[Adam]

http://delivery.tacticalrepublic.com/w/1.0/ri?ts=1fHNpZD01Mjk5fGF1aWQ9MTE4OTc2fGFpZD02NzIxMTh 8cHViPTg0OTZ8bGlkPTk3OTg0fHQ9MXxyaWQ9OTlhNWQ5MmEtM DcxOS00NWQyLTlkYWQtNzk0OGM5MTY0NWIwfG9pZD0xNjQwNnx ibT1CVVlJTkcuTk9OR1VBUkFOVEVFRHxwYz1VU0R8cD0yMDAwf GFjPVVTRHxwbT1QUklDSU5HLkNQTXxydD0xMzU2ODIzMjk3fHB yPTIwMDB8YWR2PTg1NTM&cb=70940880

Perhaps this would work:

South Carolina Lawmaker Reintroduces Bill to Exempt State from Federal Gun Ban 12/28/12 (http://www.guns.com/2012/12/28/south-carolina-lawmaker-reintroduces-bill-to-exempt-state-from-federal-gun-ban/) | by S.H. Blannelberry (http://www.guns.com/author/blannelberry/) 15 6384

South Carolina Sen. Lee Bright (R-Spartanburg) has reintroduced a bill that would exempt any firearm, accessory or ammunition manufactured and kept within the borders of the Palmetto State from federal regulations.

Invoking states rights under the 9th and 10th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, Bright’s legislation – known as the ‘South Carolina Firearms Freedom Act’ – states:
“A personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in South Carolina and that remains within the borders of South Carolina is not subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of Congress to regulate interstate commerce.”
“Congress has not expressly preempted state regulation of intrastate commerce pertaining to the manufacture on an intrastate basis of firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition,” the bill adds.
http://www.guns.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/marbut_graph1.jpeg (http://www.guns.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/marbut_graph1.jpeg)Firearms Freedom Act

The ‘Firearms Freedom Act’ (http://firearmsfreedomact.com/) movement has its origins in Montana, where a gun maker by the name of Gary Marbut got sick and tired of the federal government’s overreach with respect to his business. After closely examining the Constitution, in particular the commerce clause, Marbut conceived the Firearms Freedom Act in 2009.
“This is really about state’s rights and federal power rather than gun control,” Marbut told the Wall Street Journal in a 2011 interview. “There is an emerging awareness by the people of America that the federal government has gone too far, and it’s dependent on a really weird interpretation” (for more on this, click here (http://www.guns.com/2011/07/23/montana-man-fights-feds-on-gun-control/)).
The Montana FFA is now being reviewed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. Yet, despite the uncertainty of its fate, at least 7 other states have passed a clone version of the bill as its made its way through the courts.
Sen. Bright had previously introduced the SC FFA during the 2011-2012 legislative session. However, it died after being referred to a committee.
http://www.guns.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/opinion.jpeg (http://www.guns.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/opinion.jpeg)Sen. Lee Bright

Given recent events, the elementary school shooting in Newtown, CT, and the subsequent calls for gun control at the Federal level (Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s promise to renew the Assault Weapons Ban), Bright sees support for the bill gaining momentum.
“A lot of people are showing a lot of interest in it. We’ve got a better chance now than we had previously,” Bright told SHJ.com (http://www.goupstate.com/article/20121227/ARTICLES/121229850/1027/opinion?Title=Bright-reintroduces-bill-to-exempt-guns-made-in-SC-from-federal-laws&tc=ar), adding that, “There are a lot of folks that are against the Second Amendment and want to restrict people’s guns rights, and this is just one they seized.”
South Carolina is home to several gun manufacturers and firearms-related businesses, most notably FN Manufacturing. The Columbia-based operation produces an array of different products, from handguns to barrels for .50 caliber machine guns (for more on this, click here (http://www.fnmfg.com/capabilities/Gun%20Barrels/)).
Again, just to clarify, if the SC FFA were to be signed into law, with few exceptions, none of FN’s products would be subject to federal law provided they were stamped with “Made in South Carolina” (a requirement of the bill) and kept within the state’s borders.
Sounds like a good deal, right?
State lawmakers will reconvene in Columbia on Jan. 8. Let’s hope they give the FFA some serious consideration.


... +1