Responses from CO Legislators Thread

[Birddog1911]

So in other words, Hodge and Newell have already made up their minds, and are telling us to go fuck ourselves.

[brutal]

Response from Mary Hodge:

·The Firearm Background Check Modernization Act, HB13-1229, will require background checks for all gun buyers, regardless of how they acquire their guns.The bill also includes provisions to enhance the real-time sharing of mental health data between state and federal agencies; and a provision to allow individuals denied access to firearms to appeal those denials.

There is already a provision in the NICS system and the states ARE NOT SUBMITTING ENOUGH DATA!

·The High-Capacity Magazine Ban, HB13-1224, will ban the sale or transfer of all ammunition feeding devices capable of accepting more than 15 rounds. Large-capacity magazines were used in the Aurora, Sandy Hook, Tucson, Virginia Tech, and Fort Hood massacres, and a recent poll found that 61% of Colorado voters support a ban on those magazines.

What poll? Denver Post? Fucking rag. The paper too.

·HB13-1228 will help reduce the backlog in the CBI InstaCheck program and return us to the policy we had in the 1990s of requiring people who want to buy firearms to pay for the expense of the InstaCheck, just as teachers, real estate brokers, attorneys and doctors do currently.

Teaching, selling houses, and ambulance chasing are not guaranteed protection by the Bill of rights.

All 4 bills have passed the Colorado House. Changes were made to HB13-1224, increasing the magazine capacity allowed to 15 rounds. The bill, as it stands, will not prohibit the manufacture of high-capacity magazines, such as those at made by Magpul Industries. Thanks again for contacting me and sharing your input. If you have any further concerns, please feel free to contact my office.

Sincerely,

Senator Mary Hodge

They still don't understand the MagPul WILL LEAVE and take jobs and tax revenue?

[sniper7]

I responded to her letting her know if a kind way that magpul makes 20 and 30 round magazines and will be forced to leave unless at a minimum amendments are changed to allow at least 30 round mags and if they don't most likely they will face not only lost tax revenue and a loss of jobs but up to a supreme court ruling which will cost the state even more tax dollars defending this potential law. I also alerted her that they need to up the shotgun magazine limit to a minimum of 20 rounds as I use a saiga during snow goose which has no limit and no mag limit to thin the massive amount of snow geese out. Cdow reports there are still way too many snow geese in population and it needs to be controlled.

[VDW]

In case you had any doubts about her:
"Thank you for contacting me with your concerns regarding the recently introduced firearm safety bills here at the State Legislature.


Our nation has a rich history of responsible gun ownership and we guarantee extensive rights for gun owners. None of Colorado's proposed legislation would remove the right of responsible citizens to bear arms.


I recognize and support the rights of law abiding citizens to own guns. None of the proposals before the legislature would violate the 2^nd Amendment as interpreted by the Supreme Court.


Thank you again for contacting me with your concerns.


Sincerely,


Senator Irene Aguilar, MD
Chair, Senate Health and Human Services Committee"


The Office of Senator Irene Aguilar, M.D.

[VDW]

My response:

Sen. Aguilar,

Your response is crystal clear to me. Thanks for clarifying that you have no respect for the 2nd Ammendment. These bills most certainly do infringe on the 2nd Ammendment. The Supreme Court ruled citizens have a right to bear arms for self-defense. Can you guarantee no one will ever be attacked by more than 1 attacker and/or the attackers won't be wearing body armor? Can you guarantee a citizen won't miss when confronted with a lethal threat? Can you guarantee an attacker will stop after being hit by 1, 2, or more bullets?

"Responsible" restrictions on any right guaranteed in the Constitution doesn't only apply to the 2nd Ammendment. Do you support "responsible" voting restrictions? Are you in favor of only voting for 10 politicians, background checks to vote, or voter registration "fees"? How about mandatory sentencing for child molesters?

[Dave_L]

From Irene:

"First and foremost I want to assure you that NONE of the bills will result in restriction of the constitutionally guaranteed right to bear arms. These bills have not yet been referred to the Senate. When they do come to the Senate, I will look at all sides before I make any decisions. "

I kindly replied to her with this:

"I'm sorry, but I think you misspelled "all". You spelled it "none".

[losttrail]

A bit late but here's the response I just received from Jared Wright. I wish we had more politicians capable of this type of thinking:

Hello everyone,
Thank you for writing to me about firearms legislation. This week I received over 4,000 emails about the bills introduced February 8. While I would like to write each of you individually, the mere volume of emails I received (and am still receiving!) prevents me from doing this. But please know that I have read your concerns, and I am excited to see so many of you involved in the political process.
Most of you wrote to me in opposition to the universal background check for firearms transfers and the limit on ammunition magazine size. Some of you that receive this email wrote in favor of these bills, but the vast majority did not support these pieces of legislation. Either way, let me explain how I feel about these bills, and why I voted NO against all of them.
I believe that one of the government’s few jobs is to provide safety for all its citizens. This is why we have the police force, fire department, and men and women of our armed forces. Protecting innocent human lives is important. As a former law enforcement official, I experienced first hand the danger that guns can present when in the wrong hands. Criminals have used guns against me, and solely by the grace of God am I here to help craft laws to increase our safety. Guns in the hands of those who wish to do evil can have disastrous consequences on our society, but they also provide safety to those who need to defend themselves when law enforcement cannot help. In all too many situations, the police department cannot get to the scene of a crime before it is tragically too late. Because of this, I believe the government should ensure that citizens have an simple process to acquire weapons for self-protection. Our Nation's Founding Fathers understood this. They knew we have a fundamental need to protect ourselves from two groups — the first group is evil-doers who wish to harm our families. The second group is, in fact, an out of control tyrannical government, just like the one our Founder's fought so valiantly against to give us all freedom and liberty.
House Bill 13-1229, which would require universal background checks on firearms transfers, severely extends the amount of time a person can purchase a gun privately. Now, I understand the opposition’s argument. A criminal can purchase a gun from a law-abiding citizen and commit more crimes. The opposition claims that a universal background check would prevent this. I disagree. Criminals will still avoid the law (by nature of being a criminal) and get access to firearms without a background check. While the drafters of this bill may have good intentions, I think this bill will ultimately harm law abiding citizens and make purchasing a gun for protection more onerous.
House Bill 13-1224 would limit the size of ammunition magazines. I also voted “NO” on this bill. While, again, I believe the sponsors of this bill had good intentions to protect the safety of our citizens, this legislation is misguided at best. Banning large capacity magazines will actually not increase public safety. In fact, it will make us all LESS safe. A practiced criminal can unload a magazine and load a new one in a matter of seconds. For a trained criminal, this bill will not slow the rate of shooting or decrease the devastation caused, but this legislation will make people less able to protect themselves against intruders and assailants against themselves and their families and loved ones - and that is wrong.
The recent tragic shootings are cause for intense concern, no doubt. But rather than legislating to slow the purchase of guns, I believe that allowing our citizens to easily obtain guns for self-protection and the protection of our most valuable asset — our children — is a much better idea. It is also an idea that our Founding Fathers would adhere to as they indicated in the Second Amendment, rights which have recently been upheld and sustained by our United States Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller. I swore an oath to protect and defend our US Constitution and our Colorado Constitution. If I voted any other way but NO on these gun control bills, I would be violating that oath.
For those of you that wrote to me in favor of these bills, I appreciate your input. However, I believe these bills do more harm than good. The public safety of our State and Nation is a discussion we must continue to have and a topic we must act on with certainty. Our action should be focused on the evil-doers, not on just one of the tools they choose to use against us. I hope to continue to offer solutions in the form of better mental health care standards in our state, stricter penalties for violent criminals and better law enforcement response times and stationing in our schools.
Thank you again for writing me. If I can be of any assistance in the future, please do not hesitate to contact my office.
Sincerely,
Jared

[ferrum]

In case you had any doubts about her:
"Thank you for contacting me with your concerns regarding the recently introduced firearm safety bills here at the State Legislature.
Our nation has a rich history of responsible gun ownership and we guarantee extensive rights for gun owners. None of Colorado's proposed legislation would remove the right of responsible citizens to bear arms.


I recognize and support the rights of law abiding citizens to own guns. None of the proposals before the legislature would violate the 2^nd Amendment as interpreted by the Supreme Court.


Thank you again for contacting me with your concerns.


Sincerely,


Senator Irene Aguilar, MD
Chair, Senate Health and Human Services Committee"


The Office of Senator Irene Aguilar, M.D.

I got the same steaming pile of shit in my inbox.

[Dave_L]

I got the same response from Jared. 4,000 emails in one week! Keep it up, everyone!!

[ghettoblaster]

Have not heard a thing from any of then with my numerous emails. I think meeting in person is the way to go.

They can walk lock step all the way to the recall vote for all I care. They are ensuring their own demise, politically speaking. If they won't listen to reason, they will listen to an election. Then forced retirement.