Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2015 Pro 2A bills in the works.
#1
All of these bills must first pass through the State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee. Also know as the FAIL Committee.


HB 15-1127 CONCERNING CIVIL LIABILITY FOR BUSINESSES THAT PERMIT THE CARRYING OF CONCEALED HANDGUNS.

This bill will add protections for businesses who allow the public to carry firearms in their establishment.
(Postponed Indefinitely)


HB 15-1009 CONCERNING REPEALING CERTAIN PROVISIONS REGARDING LARGE-CAPACITY AMMUNITION MAGAZINES.

This bill would remove the 15 round magazine capacity restriction. (Postponed Indefinitely)

HB 15-1049 CONCERNING THE USE OF DEADLY PHYSICAL FORCE AGAINST A PERSON WHO HAS MADE AN ILLEGAL ENTRY INTO A PLACE OF BUSINESS./

This bill would expand protections for people who act in self defense against another person. It change the language from homes to dwellings.(Postponed Indefinitely)

HB 15-1050 CONCERNING CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECKS PERFORMED PURSUANT TO TRANSFERS OF FIREARMS

This bill would remove the recently added requirement of background checks on private party firearms sales.
(Postponed Indefinitely)
Where can you carry? Check the editable COGO Carry Map
When in doubt. JFC.

Reply
#2
This site may be of interest also, to track progress:

http://www.rmgo.org/?format=feed&type=rss
Reply
#3
[Image: yee_haw__by_groovy_gecko-d5mqdm1.jpg]
Reply
#4
Hearings on these bills will be held Feb 2 at 1:30 PM in room 271 of the Capitol.

If you want to protect our rights, it would be a good idea to attend the hearing AND testify. If nobody shows up (which is usually the case for 90% of legislation), the message legislators receive is that the bill is not very important and will pass or die on a party line vote.

The chairman can limit the testimony and generally legislators prefer short statements that are not repetitive. The best witnesses submit testimony in writing, generally just a couple pages, take about 20-25 copies. Show up early to sign in. Conservative business attire and respectful demeanor is usually recommended as the media is often in attendance (looking for sound bites) and you how one looks/acts often reflects on one's credibility.

Here are the rules for public participation:

http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite?blobcol=urldata&blobheader=application%2Fpdf&blobkey=id&blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobwhere=1224913761877&ssbinary=true
Reply
#5
Thank you for posting that info Mark.

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk
Where can you carry? Check the editable COGO Carry Map
When in doubt. JFC.

Reply
#6
The hearing on the 4 House bills has been moved to the old Supreme Court hearing room (a significant turn out must be anticipated)

A hearing on the Senate bills (Constitutional Carry and Repeal of the Expanded Background Checks) is being held in room 271.

The hearings will be held simultaneously at 1:30.

It is important that people show up at these hearings.

IMHO, the Constitutional Carry is the most important but has the least likelihood of passage. Citizens should not have to apply to the government for permission to bear arms -- that's a right allegedly guaranteed in the 2nd Amendment. Unfortunately, many in law enforcement and government believe gun owners are inherently dangerous and need to be tracked and licensed. They also like the fees CHP applications generate.

Arizona, Wyoming, Vermont and Alaska have Constitutional Carry. It is also being introduced in Kansas (which, like Utah, prohibits bans on CCW in public buildings). In Colorado, county Sheriffs have significantly ramped up discretionary denials and revocations of CHPs in recent years turning a shall issue statute into a may issue law.
Reply
#7
great information mark!

I really hope this has some legs
Reply
#8
[deleted]
Reply
#9
I spent yesterday afternoon at the Senate Judiciary committee hearing dealing with two bills -- 15-032 (Constitutional Carry which would eliminate the need to get CHP from your local sheriff) and 15-086 (Repeal Background Check requirements for firearm transfers). The room was pretty full with 20-25 people signed up to testify on each bill (my guesstimate). The hearing ran until 6:30. The vote was party line 3R v 2D to pass the bills out the Committee.

The Association of Police Chiefs and the CBI testified against repeal of the background checks saying that this helped them identify criminals who attempted to purchase guns (in spite of the stats that there were practically no denials given the volume of transfers). The Association of Police Chiefs testified against Constitutitonal Carry because they needed to know who had concealed weapons and this would eliminate the training that's part of the permitting process (not sure how the Colorado CHP training is actually firearms training since Colorado does not require applicants to qualify with weapons as do other states, like NV, KS). Senator Clark (former Sheriff) pointed out that you can't tell by looking whether someone has a CHP and that if the Constititional Carry passes, estimates are that only 2,500 people would not apply for a CHP and people would continue to apply for a CHP for reciprocity. The Chief of Police Association witness said the permits were required to accomodate the "naked man" exception that gives Sheriffs the right to deny a permit for someone who is known to be unstable (that sort of discretion seems to transform Colorado from a "shall issue" state to a "may issue" state).

Lots of people testified that gun owners and the proliferation of guns was dangerous. Faith groups, domestic violence groups, relatives of those killed by firearms, etc. The pro-gun testimony was mostly from lobbyists and gun organizations rather than from "real" people.

Hearings on the House bills happened at the same time, so the public was split between the Senate and the House hearings.

My prediction is that both bills will fail in the House on a party line vote. Change will require a party change in the House or fear by Ds that they will be recalled by an angry electorate. But, if ordinary folks don't show up at these hearings in support of these bills, Ds have nothing to fear.
Reply
#10
I'm shaking my head at myself. I got my dates mixed up. I thought the hearings were today and not yesterday. This morning I pulled up the Committee web site and saw on the Twitter feed that they voted to postpone all of these bills indefinitely.
Where can you carry? Check the editable COGO Carry Map
When in doubt. JFC.

Reply
#11
(02-03-2015, 09:25 AM)MarkS Wrote: I spent yesterday afternoon at the Senate Judiciary committee hearing dealing with two bills -- 15-032 (Constitutional Carry which would eliminate the need to get CHP from your local sheriff) and 15-086 (Repeal Background Check requirements for firearm transfers). The room was pretty full with 20-25 people signed up to testify on each bill (my guesstimate). The hearing ran until 6:30. The vote was party line 3R v 2D to pass the bills out the Committee.

The Association of Police Chiefs and the CBI testified against repeal of the background checks saying that this helped them identify criminals who attempted to purchase guns (in spite of the stats that there were practically no denials given the volume of transfers).
Do you know where they are pulling their stats from? I wonder if they count everyone that gets denied or just those that are actually forbidden from possessing. That would make a difference in numbers.
The Association of Police Chiefs testified against Constitutional Carry because they needed to know who had concealed weapons and this would eliminate the training that's part of the permitting process (not sure how the Colorado CHP training is actually firearms training since Colorado does not require applicants to qualify with weapons as do other states, like NV, KS). Senator Clark (former Sheriff) pointed out that you can't tell by looking whether someone has a CHP and that if the Constititional Carry passes, estimates are that only 2,500 people would not apply for a CHP and people would continue to apply for a CHP for reciprocity. The Chief of Police Association witness said the permits were required to accomodate the "naked man" exception that gives Sheriffs the right to deny a permit for someone who is known to be unstable (that sort of discretion seems to transform Colorado from a "shall issue" state to a "may issue" state).
The same tired illogical arguments. Never mind that the people they are afraid of most likely won't even apply for a permit. If they do and are denied they will just carry anyway.

They don't need to know who has concealed weapon permits and you're right, the training requirement is a joke. It shouldn't exist. People should seek training on their own.


Lots of people testified that gun owners and the proliferation of guns was dangerous. Faith groups, domestic violence groups, relatives of those killed by firearms, etc. The pro-gun testimony was mostly from lobbyists and gun organizations rather than from "real" people.

Hearings on the House bills happened at the same time, so the public was split between the Senate and the House hearings.

My prediction is that both bills will fail in the House on a party line vote. Change will require a party change in the House or fear by Ds that they will be recalled by an angry electorate. But, if ordinary folks don't show up at these hearings in support of these bills, Ds have nothing to fear.
Where can you carry? Check the editable COGO Carry Map
When in doubt. JFC.

Reply
#12
(02-03-2015, 09:25 AM)MarkS Wrote: The Association of Police Chiefs and the CBI testified against repeal of the background checks saying that this helped them identify criminals who attempted to purchase guns

Really? I haven't heard of anyone being criminally prosecuted who was turned down by the back ground check. I thought that was one of the major flaws to the system, the belief that it's kept X amount of criminals from purchasing firearms, yet there are no consequences to the criminals.
Reply
#13
That question was asked and the answer was "Yes. People who had warrants out for them were arrested when they filled out the transfer form." I recollect that it was the CBI chief who gave that answer.

The general view put forth by LE and the anti-gun folks was that the background check kept guns out of the hands of criminals and even if only one crook was denied a firearm, it was worth the hassle/cost imposed on everyone else. That lead to a lot of discussion about how guns are readily available to crooks on the black market or in burglaries/thefts.

The legal arguments made by Senator Lambert for the repeal of the background checks (SB 15-086) were interesting and not something I'd heard before. Here's my understanding/summary ...

1. The fee for the background check is akin to a poll tax -- i.e., a tax/fee imposed by government for the exercise of a fundamental right.

2. The fee for the background check is not a service that benefits the payor, but a charge for a government function. This seemed to be a TABOR-related argument.

3. The background check is a violation of the 4th Amendment's prohibition on warrantless searches. There's a lot of case law that holds that government cannot require citizens to give up their 4th Amendment right to be free from warrantless searches to exercise another Constitutional right. I've seen that case law in 1st Amendment cases where LE required protestors to go through a metal detector to participate in a protest and the court held that violated the 4th Amendment. See, e.g., Burgeois v Peters http://openjurist.org/387/f3d/1303/bourgeois-v-peters-l

4. The 72-hour period is unreasonable/unworkable. When those displaced by the floods sought to store firearms with neighbors, they could not do so without fear of arrest. The LE witnesses pretty much punted this issue saying that it was illegal, but they doubted that the law would be enforced leading to speculation regarding whether LE would be picking and choosing what to enforce. Considerable discussion of the Ft Collins case by Senator Clark where the PD would not return a handgun to an accident victim because they would not pay the $10 for a FFL transfer.
Reply
#14
The Association of Police Chiefs and the CBI testified against repeal of the background checks saying that this helped them identify criminals who attempted to purchase guns (in spite of the stats that there were practically no denials given the volume of transfers).

Do you know where they are pulling their stats from? I wonder if they count everyone that gets denied or just those that are actually forbidden from possessing. That would make a difference in numbers.

CBI's stats were from CBI. Any denial for any reason was interpreted as keeping a gun out of the hands of a criminal or dangerous individual.

All sorts of other stats were thrown about, usually with no attribution. Some claimed that larger numbers of CHPs were correlated with larger numbers of shootings even though the crime rate was falling. Some Stanford University study was inserted into the record (sorry, I did not get the name) that made some correlation between CHPs, gun ownership and violence. Senator Lundberg did not give it much credence.

One witness cited California and New York city as examples of low crime rate jurisdictions attributable to tougher gun laws. The clear conclusion of the anti-gun crowd was that gun ownership caused more crime and gun violence.

It's why it's important to participate in the legislative process. Silence means that these silly stats become the basis for legislation.
Reply
#15
In case anyone had not heard, there is a hearing on Monday, February 23 before the Senate Judiciary Committee for the bill to repeal the magazine limit law (SB 15-175).  The hearing is at 1:30 in room 271 at the State Capitol.

Here's a link to the bill

http://www.leg.state.co.us/CLICS/CLICS2015A/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/04A8999CD8214F1587257D9000781424?Open&file=175_01.pdf

On the Senate side, it is sponsored by Chris Holbert of Parker and John Cooke of Weld county (former sheriff).

If you can make it, it is important to show up and testify.  As with the hearings on the previous bills, I would expect the chairman of the Judiciary Committee to limit testimony to 3 minutes or so.  That's about 1 page of single-spaced written testimony.  Good witnesses prepare written testimony to provide to the Committee members and their staffs.  Poor witnesses "wing it" with unprepared statements.   There will likely be a video link to hear testimony from the public in Grand Junction as there was in the previous hearings.

There will be a host of anti-gun witnesses, including, if the other bills are any guide, the CBI and the Colorado Association of Chiefs of Police and numerous victims' advocacy groups, all of whom will testify about how otherwise law-abiding gun owners are criminals in the making who will inevitably turn to crime unless guns are highly regulated or outright banned.

IMHO, it would be helpful if someone(s) appeared who could testify about (1) the economic/jobs impacts of the bill -- i.e., Magpul's departure from the state and the injection molding companies in Colorado that also disappeared; (2) anyone who has used a gun for self defense or to prevent harm to themselves or others; (3) the unenforceability of the law (e.g., how does one know whether a magazine was purchased before the capacity limits or how does one prevent persons from buying magazines with greater than 15 round capacity in LGSs outside of Colorado); and (4) with the passage of Amendment 64 and the persistence of TABOR, Colorado citizens are clearly expressing a desire to limit government oversight on their activities and limit the size of government.   Otherwise, it will be a pretty one-sided event with numerous witnesses testifying about "who needs more than 15 rounds anyway?"

This will likely pass the Judiciary Committee on a party line vote and fail in the House, also on a party line vote.
Reply
#16
I have an orientation I have to attend Monday morning. If I get out in time I will be there.
Where can you carry? Check the editable COGO Carry Map
When in doubt. JFC.

Reply
#17
So I didn't make it to the hearing. Did you make it MarkS?
Where can you carry? Check the editable COGO Carry Map
When in doubt. JFC.

Reply
#18
I saw on the news that the state legislature took a snow day on Monday. I've no idea as to when the postponed hearings were/are rescheduled.
Reply
#19
I saw that earlier. I start a new job next week and won't have the availability to attend hearings.
Where can you carry? Check the editable COGO Carry Map
When in doubt. JFC.

Reply
#20
(02-24-2015, 01:07 AM)Beau Wrote: So I didn't make it to the hearing. Did you make it MarkS?

Unfortunately, no.  I'm in Nevada all this week. 
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)