Colorado legislative preview

[LoboGunLeather]

Just received notice of a meeting of Colorado Association of Chiefs of Police scheduled for December 4, 2018. Agenda for the meeting is to establish positions to be taken by CACP's lobbyists during the 2019 session of the state legislature. Provided was a page of suggested legislative measures, including:

-Extreme Risk Protective Orders ("red flag" legislation)
-Prohibit gun possession by those with violent misdemeanor conviction
-Ban bump stocks
-Safe storage or child protection orders (criminal penalties for gun owners who allow juvenile access and gun is used to commit crime or harm self or others)
-Assault weapons ban
-Amend Universal Background Check law for cases of suicide prevention
-Tighten high capacity magazine ban to include "kits"
-Increase age for all gun purchases to 21
-Prohibit sales of silencers
-Require permit to purchase firearm (or license)
-Provide a waiting period for gun purchase
-Prohibit concealed carry on college campuses
-Prohibit open carry
-Prohibit concealed carry in cultural facilities
-CCW Training Classes, standardize
-Require reporting of stolen guns
-Require gun dealers lock up merchandise after hours
-Repeal lawsuit ban
-Repeal preemption
-FEDERAL LEGISLATION OF CONCERN:
-Universal background checks, high capacity magazine ban, assault weapons ban, terrorist watch list, 3D printed gun prohibitions, repeal Dickey Amendment
-Concealed carry reciprocity, silencers
------------------------------------------------------

All topics are presented without elaboration or definitions of terms.

The document is on the letterhead of "Colorado Ceasefire, Legislative Action- Working for freedom from gun violence", and is titled "2019 Legislative Concepts".

So, we are facing what amounts to the general laundry list of gun control advocates, presented by a lobbying group that is known to be actively working for strict gun control laws. The goal will be to add CACP to the list of supporters for lobbying purposes.

Prior to my retirement I was an active member of Colorado Association of Chiefs of Police, served as a board member and regional representative, and I am now a member on retired status (non-voting). If past experience is any guide, we can expect CACP to join anti-gun initiatives in lock-step. Also, my experience informs me that CACP will adopt the group's position without consulting the general membership, and without a vote of the members.

Here is what we have to look forward to here in Colorado, paid lobbyists pushing a legislative agenda to our elected representatives with the imprimatur of our state's chief law enforcement officers.

I predict a rough ride throughout 2019, and probably beyond.

 

[stansdds]

The same thing happens every year in Virginia, so you are not alone.

 

[10ring]

The "other side" is in pretty much complete control of the state legislature in in Colorado now and they have had the Governor's office for some time. It is likely going to be very ugly.

 

[Johnrh]

I lived in CO in the late 60's and also in the mid to late 70's. Great state, then. At that time there were bumper stickers starting to show up that read "Don't Californicate Colorado" Guess it happened anyway.

 

[10ring]

The "red flag" law is a pretty much a given. Ironically, the sentiment is that due to the recent shooting in California, Colorado needs to have a red flag (like they have in California), to prevent incidents like they just had in California.

I have no problem with keeping guns out of the hands of legitimately unstable people who should not be armed, but the way these laws are typically written, an ex-wife, ex-girlfriend, some anti-gun LEO whom you annoy or that sister-in-law that hates you can get all of your firearms and ammo seized and you then have to hire a lawyer to prove you are not a danger in the hope of then getting your guns back, likely in much worse condition than when they were taken.

Most of these laws place little to no burden on the person initiating the complaint to prove their claim and impose no penalty or cost on people whose claims prove unfounded.

 

[LoboGunLeather]

The "red flag" law is a pretty much a given. Ironically, the sentiment is that due to the recent shooting in California, Colorado needs to have a red flag (like they have in California), to prevent incidents like they just had in California.

I have no problem with keeping guns out of the hands of legitimately unstable people who should not be armed, but the way these laws are typically written, an ex-wife, ex-girlfriend, some anti-gun LEO whom you annoy or that sister-in-law that hates you can get all of your firearms and ammo seized and you then have to hire a lawyer to prove you are not a danger in the hope of then getting your guns back, likely in much worse condition than when they were taken.

Most of these laws place little to no burden on the person initiating the complaint to prove their claim and impose no penalty or cost on people whose claims prove unfounded.

The nature of the "red flag" laws is that anyone who knows you, claims to know you, or has a direct relationship with you, or claims such a relationship may file a petition to the court in "ex parte" status, meaning that the court will rule on the petition without notice to the person to be restrained or any opportunity for said restrained person to respond prior to action of the court. The possibilities for abuse are endless (angry spouses or former significant others, family members with a grudge, neighbors with a bone to pick, mental health professionals (of which over half are in treatment programs at any given time), or cops placed in a position of having to act with an excess of caution in questionable circumstances.

After the order is entered, and the seizure has occurred, it is up to the restrained person to pursue legal redress at his/her expense with the deck stacked heavily against any chance of due process or timely resolution.

Everything in our Constitution, laws, and legal traditions prohibits prior restraint; that is a restraint on one's liberties without due process of law. These "red flag" acts give nothing more than a wink and a nod to due process by allowing the aggrieved party to plod through the legal system in an effort to prove themselves innocent, rather than true due process requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt prior to punitive sanctions.

Personally, I do not want to be the test case. For anyone who finds themselves in such a position I will certainly consider helping to fund legal remedies with a goal of nullifying any such legislation that may come into being.

 

[gman51]

The right to bear arms shall not be infringed upon. That is Law of the Land. It is about time SCOTUS shut down those that have no respect for the Constitution and think they are not bound by it.

We the people have got to hold all to their oath to uphold the Constitution. It is about time those wishing to take the rights of the masses away due to the actions of a few be stopped.

 

[jag312]

When they say "Prohibit sales of silencers", that is only the first step to ban all NFA firearms.

 

[SMSgt]

CO is hosed...

 

[Wyo]

It is truly amazing to those of us who live just north of the Colorado border to watch what has happened and seems likely to happen there while we've had to deal with none of that stuff. Now that the democrats own the entire legislature and the governor's mansion I suspect you are in for a very rough ride for the next couple of years.

 

[Watchdog]

The right to bear arms shall not be infringed upon. That is Law of the Land. It is about time SCOTUS shut down those that have no respect for the Constitution and think they are not bound by it.

How do you suggest the Supreme Court go about doing that? The Court won't (and can't) just arbitrarily take action on an issue unless that issue is brought before it.

We the people have got to hold all to their oath to uphold the Constitution.

All who? Cops? Judges? Supreme Court justices? The president?

It is about time those wishing to take the rights of the masses away due to the actions of a few be stopped.

That's pretty vague. Fiery rhetoric sounds good, but accomplishes nothing. How do you propose we stop them? Revolution? Armed resistance?

And when you get right down to it, the anti-gun people number more than just a "few".

 

[Watchdog]

Just received notice of a meeting of Colorado Association of Chiefs of Police scheduled for December 4, 2018.

Did they have their meeting?

 

[LoboGunLeather]

Did they have their meeting?

I presume that the meeting took place. I did not attend (retired member so no vote anyway) and cannot report on attendance or discussion. I expect to receive notice of any official positions adopted by CACP.

 

[10ring]

The meeting occurred. I was not present but have a good idea how the meeting went. Somewhat surprisingly, many of the proposals were not well received. They liked the bump stock ban and standardized requirements for CCW permits. Some of the persons present were confused about some of the proposals and their positions might change.

The CACP is planning on writing a position paper at some point.

Of course, I don't know how much any of this will matter to the politicians when the time comes. I think they would like the support, but would not count on them to to back down due to a lack of support.

I believe if you asked most of the members "off the record," they would likely say they expect most of the items to pass and become law, regardless of the CACP position.

 

[Watchdog]

I presume that the meeting took place. I did not attend (retired member so no vote anyway) and cannot report on attendance or discussion. I expect to receive notice of any official positions adopted by CACP.

The meeting occurred. I was not present but have a good idea how the meeting went. Somewhat surprisingly, many of the proposals were not well received...The CACP is planning on writing a position paper at some point...Of course, I don't know how much any of this will matter to the politicians when the time comes.

I guess my main question would have to be: How much influence does the CACP really have?

Quoting from the OP: "Agenda for the meeting is to establish positions to be taken by CACP's lobbyists during the 2019 session of the state legislature. Provided was a page of suggested legislative measures..."

Really, all they were doing was making suggestions to lobbyists...they apparently weren't talking directly to the state's legislators. Their "list" seems to be the shotgun approach...just shoot everything out there and see what hits.

Another way of putting my question would be: Who really pays attention to this sort of thing? Has there been any previous word of legislators actually trying to introduce bills which include some of this B.S.?

I believe if you asked most of the members "off the record," they would likely say they expect most of the items to pass and become law, regardless of the CACP position.

I don't live in Colorado, okay? But I just don't see some of those items as having a chance of ever making it out of committee if such bills were introduced. I guess I'm just an optimist.

 

[cladd1]

I live in the People's Republic Of Illinois and think it is crazy - I believe Colorado is right there with it! It makes me wonder how a great hunting state ever got this way?

 

[10ring]

Watchdog: I hope you are right, but I believe what we are seeing is a list of goals by the political party that is in complete control of the state legislature and governorship and is comprised of people who won in large part due to massive support from national and local gun control groups.

One of our new legislator's has himself said that gun control is the reason he ran. (Son was killed in the Aurora theater shooting and he has dedicated his life to gun control since then). Many of the things on this list are the same things we will see in other states and even nationally. They won't get everything on their Christmas wish list, but they will likely get a lot.

The repeal of preemption alone would be a nightmare for law-abiding gun owners. The red flag law is a done deal and an assault weapon ban is very likely, we just don't know what they will define as an assault weapon and whether it will have a grandfather clause. We already have a magazine limit but some of our esteemed politicians want to bump it down and require disposal, a la N.J.

Again, hopefully you are right and it won't be a s bad as I fear.

 

[Smoke]

They're going to have to amend the state constitution to ban open carry or concealed carry on state university campuses

 

[10ring]

They're going to have to amend the state constitution to ban open carry or concealed carry on state university campuses

I wish I could agree with you. Only reason college campus carry bans were overturned by the Supreme Court (Colo) was preemption, not the state Constitution. As to open carry, the situation is less clear, but open carry is prohibited in Denver and has been for a long time, and that ordinance has been upheld. Colorado law changed after that decision in a way that is helpful, but untested.

If the state's preemption law is repealed, numerous cities will ban open carry and impose all kinds of magazine limits and other stuff, and it will take few years to see what the courts will do with those. I am hopeful that the preemption law will probably remain intact. Let's all avoid the open carry is good or bad discussion, it will just get the thread locked.

 

[daglockman]

Colorado has been in a downward spiral for years, and is about to crash. My only hope is that the rest of the country takes note, and realizes what could be happening nationally. From the drugs, to the illegal immigrants, to the energy restrictions, firearms and ammunition restrictions and bans, state mandated healthcare, to everything else that is coming, Colorado IS doomed.