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]

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

[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.