First draft of ballot initiative

[Zundfolge]

Ok, we gotta get this ball rolling somewhere.

So I've thrown together preliminary text for a possible constitutional amendment to put on the ballot (for those that haven't been paying attention or just moved here, here in Colorado the people can amend the state constitution via ballot initiative).

The rules are simple;


The amendment must be on a single subject (and that single subject referenced in the title).
To get on the ballot it must get enough signatures to get on the ballot (The number of signatures required for a successful petition is equal to 5% of the total number of votes cast for the office of Secretary of State in the preceding general election. so in this case 86,105).


With those in mind I've done my best to keep to the single subject and not cross any lines that would significantly reduce the number of people willing to sign (so no "constitutional carry" or codified rejection of Federal law or rejection of the NFA with the state borders ... even though I'd love to have all those things).

So I present the following ... get your highlighters and red markers out and let me know if this is remotely on the right track (any legal beagles out there we could REALLY use your help on the verbiage ... much of which I lifted from other successful ballot initiatives). I have a tendency to write run on sentences (although that seems to be a common trait of legislative language) and I tend to over use parenthetical statements (like this one).


Introduction: In order to clarify and preserve the rights of the People of Colorado under Article II Section 13 of the Colorado Constitution and Amendment II of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of the United States of America, we submit the following Amendment to the Constitution of the State of Colorado:

Title: Clarifications of The Right to Keep And Bear Arms in Colorado

Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning the right to keep and bear arms, and in connection therewith, provide that no law shall be passed infringing upon the right of the people of Colorado to keep and bear arms.

Infringements include (but are not limited to): The banning of firearms, ammunition or firearms accessories for any reason (including type of operation, size, ammunition capacity, caliber, options, aesthetic features or limits on the quantity that may be owned), storage requirements, special taxation (not including regular sales tax on retail sales) or fees relating to the sale, purchase or ownership of any firearm, registration of firearms, firearm owners, accessories, ammunition, ammunition feeding devices, ammunition loading equipment or supplies or requirements that transfers between private citizens (not otherwise licensed to engage in firearms related business) be subject to background check or record keeping.

This amendment does not preclude state, county or city governments from enforcing Federal laws regulating firearms related businesses.

[Holger Danske]

At first glance it looks good

[StreetDoctor]

looks good how do I vote for it?

[CO Hugh]

Check with the Independence Institute or someone that has experience with ballot initives.

[MarkCO]

Do you have access to a Repbulican Legislator? It would be a good idea to pass it by them.

[Ronin13]

Do you have access to a Repbulican Legislator? It would be a good idea to pass it by them.
I'd say Chris Holbert- he's very pro 2A, and he's a member here... Call him Chris... :)
Zund- The only thing missing is some sort of clause that states this doesn't trump Federal law (however faulty and infringing it is), that way people (dems) won't think we (well conservatives because they don't recognize "independent" or 3rd parties) are trying to turn the state into a redneck, gun-toting, wild west. Otherwise, I love it, sign me up! 86,998 to go! [Beer]

[blacklabel]

Zund- The only thing missing is some sort of clause that states this doesn't trump Federal law (however faulty and infringing it is), that way people (dems) won't think we (well conservatives because they don't recognize "independent" or 3rd parties) are trying to turn the state into a redneck, gun-toting, wild west. Otherwise, I love it, sign me up! 86,998 to go! [Beer]

Doesn't the last sentence cover that?

[Zundfolge]

Doesn't the last sentence cover that?

That was my thinking.

[def90]

Where do I sign?

[def90]

To get on the ballot it must get enough signatures to get on the ballot (The number of signatures required for a successful petition is equal to 5% of the total number of votes cast for the office of Secretary of State in the preceding general election. so in this case 86,105).



That's far less than the number of concealed carriers so it should be a done deal.

[Irving]

Am I required to read it before voting for it?

[sniper7]

Think we can ban something as well, like a maximum of 10 liberals can be within a square mile at any time or they commit a class c felony

[HoneyBadger]

Love it! You've got my signature!

[jackthewall81]

That's far less than the number of concealed carriers so it should be a done deal.
The hard part will be informing them all about it.

[10mm-man]

That's far less than the number of concealed carriers so it should be a done deal.

^^^ Man that would be nice! Glad Zundfolge (http://www.ar-15.co/members/955-Zundfolge) wrote that up! Sure beats the; "let's pack up and run crowd!" But they will be gone shortly- THANK GOD!

[Geology Rocks]

I am in

[10mm-man]

Am I required to read it before voting for it?


^^^ NO need! What's good for the Libs is good for us!! [Beer]

[Irving]

I like the simplicity of this. Would this ballot rescind the requirement to conduct a background check at gun shows? If so, would you intend for that result to be highlighted by the language of the ballot?

[buffalobo]

Check with the Independence Institute or someone that has experience with ballot initives.


^^^^+1, and are very pro 2A.

Well done Zundfolge.[Beer]

[wreave]

Looks very good at first glance.

An important question is how it applies to existing Colorado law regarding firearms. This seems like it would repeal (or lead to repeal of) current state laws such as gun show background checks. What about the current Denver 20-round magazine ban, Denver ban on open carry, etc.?

Two part question:
-is it the intent of the proposed amendment to repeal all current laws on firearms?
-if not, how are current laws "grandfathered" in?

Other current laws include the concealed carry law. Is that a restriction on 2A rights? Constitutional Carry supporters would say it is.

So at first glance, you're on the right track, but I think we have some issues to iron out.

[newracer]

Unfortunately it needs to be written by a lawyer.

[spqrzilla]

Too broad and so too easily demogogued. "OMG! This initiative will legalize machine guns!" will be the cry of gun control activists and news anchors.

[al_g]

Unfortunately it needs to be written by a lawyer.I agree, so the question becomes how do we get the NRA, Magpul, and other organizations that can provide good legal help.

Then the next step is collecting signatures.

[spqrzilla]

No, the next step is raising enough money to buy signature collection firms, and to buy media ad time. You can't pass a ballot initiative without millions of dollars.

[HoneyBadger]

I would love to help get this rolling, but I'm not sure if I have anything to offer other than my signature. :-/

[Ronin13]

^^^ Man that would be nice! Glad Zundfolge (http://www.ar-15.co/members/955-Zundfolge) wrote that up! Sure beats the; "let's pack up and run crowd!" But they will be gone shortly- THANK GOD!
No need for that... And most of us were saying we're considering... that is if crap gets bad enough here (at least I'm only in the thinking-about-it stage).

[Aloha_Shooter]

To get on the ballot it must get enough signatures to get on the ballot (The number of signatures required for a successful petition is equal to 5% of the total number of votes cast for the office of Secretary of State in the preceding general election. so in this case 86,105).

86,102 to go ...

[Zundfolge]

Too broad and so too easily demogogued. "OMG! This initiative will legalize machine guns!" will be the cry of gun control activists and news anchors.
Gun control activists will certainly demagogue it and lie about it but that's why the last line shuts them down. The initiative changes nothing about machine guns under the law.

This does nothing but reset the law to what it is now and holds it there.

[Zundfolge]

Looks very good at first glance.

An important question is how it applies to existing Colorado law regarding firearms. This seems like it would repeal (or lead to repeal of) current state laws such as gun show background checks. What about the current Denver 20-round magazine ban, Denver ban on open carry, etc.?
As written it probably would shut down the Denver bans and gun show background checks. So maybe the language has to be tweaked (I would just as soon get rid of those too, but its more important that we get our rights 'locked in' now and worry about cleaning up the crap in places like Denver later).


Two part question:
-is it the intent of the proposed amendment to repeal all current laws on firearms?
-if not, how are current laws "grandfathered" in?

Other current laws include the concealed carry law. Is that a restriction on 2A rights? Constitutional Carry supporters would say it is.

So at first glance, you're on the right track, but I think we have some issues to iron out.
That's why I posted it, we need feedback and input from people smarter than me (also I have no idea how to organize the petition drive part of this and certainly have no money to fund it :p ).

The intent of the proposed amendment is to prevent them from being able to ban "assault" weapons, require universal background checks, register guns or owners, force us to pay additional taxes or "fees" and prevent them from banning any magazines.

Basically I want the laws of Colorado to get no more restrictive than they are right now. Someday I'd like to roll back some of the dumb laws, but for now I just want to put the brakes on.

[Zundfolge]

Bumping this back to the top because in addition to a recall election, we need to get serious about shoring up our rights with a constitutional amendment so they can't come back and try this crap again.

Oh and foxtrot's idea is a good one too.

[Ronin13]

Zund, have you tried getting Chris Holbert to weigh in on this? He being a state Legislator he could help with revising the wording and probably point you to some lawyers who could help with the revising of this draft. Then, if he jumps on board, a sponsorship from a state legislator would do great things to get it on the ballot. Just my thoughts... We could also try and get someone like Cheri Gerou- IIRC she's introduced some bills before.

[ChunkyMonkey]

+1 count me in

[Zundfolge]

Zund, have you tried getting Chris Holbert to weigh in on this?
I sent him a PM asking his advice ... I also emailed Senator Kent Lambert hoping he could maybe weigh in on it or give some advice.

[Ronin13]

I sent him a PM asking his advice ... I also emailed Senator Kent Lambert hoping he could maybe weigh in on it or give some advice.
Either way, count me in for support on this- and I can get a lot of signatures if need be...

[SenHolbert]

Howdy, friends.

Please note that I am NOT an attorney. Thus, I cannot provide legal advice or advise anyone as to his/her rights or responsibilities under the law. That's not a dodge or cop out, it's simply fact. As a citizen legislator, I get to debate BILLS (legislation) all I want. However, once a bill becomes a law, I'm not allowed to tell you what the words mean. For that, one must consult with an attorney.

The Secretary of State web site offers information about Ballot Initiatives:

http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/howTo.html

As referenced earlier, the Independence Institute could be a valuable resource in the effort.

http://www.i2i.org/staff.php

Don't overlook the offices of Legislative Counsel at the Capitol. They offer a lot of constituent assistance and may be able to offer some basic legal direction. They may decline to assist with a ballot initiative, but one of you might call to inquire.

http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite/CGA-LegislativeCouncil/CLC/1200536135363

I would encourage you to seek legal opinion on whether such an initiative would be retroactive. That's often an issue with state legislation in that it almost always cannot be retroactive. A Constitutional amendment PROBABLY could be, but you'd want to make sure of that before getting too far down the road. The legal answer to that question might also affect the language of the amendment.

I'm not going suggest that a ballot initiative would be impossible, but please do recognize that it would be a very significant challenge. Time, money, effort. Probably best to seek input from RMGO, NAGR, NRA, CSSA, et al as to their ability to assist.

Sayin' is one thing, doin' is another.

Thanks for all you're doing to advocate to my 99 colleagues and I down at the state Capitol. Wow, the horn honking was awesome!
Off to read bills for tomorrow. (total overtime is $0) [dig]

Hope this helps.

- Chris

[Kmanbay]

Approach with caution. This should be handled by people experienced in it. The judicial and legislative system are nothing like people imagine them to be. While something may have the best of intentions, you need to have someone that can look at it with every pair of eyes - you do NOT want to inadvertently open up windows. For instance, your example list (which is unheard of...) could essentially define 2A to only extend to your list (not saying that is the case, but it could be). What you construe to be a game changer could ultimately have no net effect, only to make things more difficult.

I'll give you an example - a lot of people think that if they are sued by someone, and the party goes into court, their attorney provides blatantly forged evidence, and you can catch them in lies left an right that they will get their ass handed to them and prosecuted... right? Doesn't happen. Nobody prosecutes for perjury. They get "reprimanded" which is like telling a dog "No, bad dog", and they proceed with their case. Legislative, even constitutional challenges can be much the same. It doesn't matter what you vote and pass it matters more what prior decisions have been rendered. Stacking amendments is also a bad idea imo. Using one to explain the other actually has the net effect of limiting them both.

Legislative can be much the same. You need an attorney who truly understands the Colorado Supreme Court rulings and can craft something that when viewed from any light will not have holes, and can sustain the barriers of time and challenge. You need someone with extensive experience. Good intentions do not cut it here.

I'll give you a harsh example: If the original founders (Federal) did what you are wanting to do here, we would have no firearm rights. They would have defined no limitations on black powder storage, muskets, etc. etc. and in the advent of smokeless powder, the anti's would have ruled the FF's were clearly NOT talking about smokeless powder based firearms because they were not imagined in their examples.... See? Long term thought process. We need to protect the right to bears ARMS; not the right to own FIREARMS. Big difference.

A STRONGER effect would be had in a constitutional challenge on the State Supreme Court; but you need to know how the judges are going to rule before you even attempt that route. And again - only experienced attorneys should do it.

I am *not* an attorney, so I will not be leading the charge on this. I've got a hell of a lot of civil experience nowadays and can do well on my own, but I am in no position to do this. I understand my limitations. It's important that people new to the field understand theirs as well. If you want to organize something, don't draft something, organize a movement to find the proper fit and paycheck for an attorney to do it.

On that note: Most attorneys are piles of shit. Only a few have actual courtroom experience. If you need help vetting attorneys let me know.

ETA:
Another note for you is that amendments don't have any net effect. Laws can be passed that violate ANY amendment. There is nothing in government that stops and checks. Only after they are challenged in court can they be shot down - and that is based upon Precedence. You writing an amendment is going to have no net effect on existing precedence; ergo; it has no net effect on much of anything. Better (imho) to set precedence with the right "balance" in the court (hint: you have to be patient). So if the court defines and agrees with your list, it has value. If you make a 2nd 2nd amendment, it actually can have the opposite net effect in limiting the scope of the rights in CO.

I agree with everything you just said, and would like to add:

An alternate way to resolve the problem WITHOUT the same risks above.

The recent court case overturning the University of Colorado Regents concealed carry restrictions may be a good indicator of how this court would vote.

Sec. 13 of the Colorado Constitution specifically says it does not cover concealed weapons. It does say: Text of Section 13:

Right to Bear Arms

The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons.

One possible attack would be the portion which states "or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned". What better weapon to own when summoned to defend the state than the one that uses all of the same ammo, mags and replacement parts?

[Kraven251]

HB1224 is already being addressed with a ballot initiative, thanks to some folks from the Colorado Springs.

[Slapps74]

That's far less than the number of concealed carriers so it should be a done deal.

The question is how to get it in front of them. And won't the same idiots that passed the pending laws be voting on this as well? I will sign it and stand outside and ask for signatures.