Ritter wants gun owners to pay....

[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" 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".

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" 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

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.

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

ATF's Frequently Asked Questions about Brady and NICS

[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. 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.