Colorado

The right of self-defense, which entails the right to keep and bear arms, is a fundamental human right properly infringed by no legislature. The right to bear arms is recognized by both the U.S. and Colorado constitutions. The notion of imposing a special tax on a fundamental right is repugnant and hostile to the principles of a free society. Yet the Colorado legislature is considering the imposition of just such a tax.

Michael Bane is reporting on a conspiracy by the Forest Service in Colorado to shut down shooting ranges on federal land.  No details yet.  If you're in Colorado, you'd better start finding out what's going on and call all the gun folks you know to get in on the action.

UPDATE: The Forest Service is now denying the whole thing.

UPDATE: The plot thickens. 

It seems that Denver is having delusions of grandeur. Their lawyers profess to believe that the concept of "home rule" renders them immune to state level legislation specifically intended to do otherwise. They want this power so that they can regulate the open-carry of firearms within Denver, plus ban "assault weapons" and "Saturday Night Specials". They have managed to get a judge to agree with them -- for the moment.

The judge has acknowledged the inherent contradiction and political basis of his decision:

The judge said there are limits to the city's gun control laws. For example, it can't regulate the transportation of guns in cars. He also said people with state-approved concealed weapons permits can bring guns into parks.

In other words, the City of Denver wants to be able to enact gun control, but their powers conveniently end where the legislature doesn't want to go... at least, not today. But there's something earlier in the article that demolishes the entire argument legal argument when closely examined:

Under Colorado law, cities can have state statutes define their laws or choose to have home-rule charters. Those who opt for home-rule can define their own powers as long as they don't violate the state constitution.

OK, so "home rule" cities can make their own powers, but they have to abide by the state Constitution. This is awkward, because it inverts the limited-powers model, but we can work with it. Consider first this section of the state Constitution:

Section 2. People may alter or abolish form of government ­ proviso. The people of this state have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves, as a free, sovereign and independent state; and to alter and abolish their constitution and form of government whenever they may deem it necessary to their safety and happiness, provided, such change be not repugnant to the constitution of the United States.

The state of Colorado, and therefore the home rule cities chartered under its Constitution, are bound by the 2nd Amendment. That rather renders all their regulations (including requiring licensing for concealed carry) illegal. Even if you don't buy the 2nd Amendment as being quite that strong, try out the Colorado "Right to bear arms" provision:

Section 13. Right to bear arms. The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons.

Seems to be carrying a self-defense firearm in plain site is perfectly legal according to the Colorado Constitution, and according to this article, home rule cities are legally bound by that Constitution. Case closed. But then, if you own the judge, the truth doesn't matter.

The Libertarian Party of Colorado is dead. All that remains is a walking corpse without a soul.

From May 21-23, the LPCO held its annual convention in Estes Park. Fewer than 45 voting members nominated a Libertarian candidate for state legislature who has pledged to violate the right of self-defense.

According to Steve Gresh (and others), only one person voted for None of the Above to protest the nomination of Mark Brophy, who signed a survey from Rocky Mountain Gun Owners saying he supports the so-called "assault weapons" ban, local ordinances that limit the right to bear arms, and Brady registration checks at gun shows.

This should concern any libertarian. One of our main strengths against the two major parties is our status as the "party of principle". If we attempt to compromise on issues like this, we will ultimately lose our ability to make a difference. Being a libertarian is not about getting elected at any cost.

Rep. Greg Brophy's attempt to turn Colorado streets into the gun-slinging Old West will only jeopardize the rights of responsible gun owners.

Lawmakers should promptly shoot down Brophy's House Bill 1281 when it's heard in committee next week.

The proposal allows anyone who can legally possess a handgun to conceal it in public. Brophy says it allows law- abiding citizens to conceal firearms "without going through the burdensome and expensive process of acquiring a permit."

First, they called it "Vermont Carry", because only Vermont did it -- and only as a result of a state supreme court ruling that prohibited any laws to the contrary. Of course, once the rule was set in stone, there were no problems as a result of the law, so no one has ever really bothered to change it. Indeed, I would imagine most anti-gun types don't even know about concealed-carry in Vermont.

But then Alaska passed a law changing their own standard from shall-issue to "no permit required for law-abiding citizens". And all of a sudden, it wasn't just Vermont Carry anymore. Vermont-and-Alaska Carry? Maybe you could manage that; you know, call it "VAL" for short.

But now a bill to the same effect has been proposed in Colorado. And all of a sudden, it looks like we are starting to make progress.

Publicola has some insight into the Colorado races. Both candidates are claiming to be opposed to gun control, but only one of them means it.

Don Ortega says he is a lifetime member of the National Rifle Association. Sometimes he walks the streets of Colorado Springs carrying a shotgun. Sometimes he takes the gun to the public library. He took it to three recent City Council meetings.

That's what Ortega did when he started carrying his shotgun to Colorado Springs City Council meetings. He showed just how exposed Americans are because of our lack of sane gun laws.

Let's take a moment to step aside from the nervousness this particular character generated, and ask ourselves an important question. How many people did this person hurt or kill with his openly-carried firearm in city council meetings? How many people did he threaten with it?

The answer may surprise you: none at all. While Ortega's choice of method is a little extreme, he's not hurting anyone. He's not even being threatening -- he usually unloads and disassembles the shotgun while in the meeting, and certainly isn't waving it around.

So why the fuss? Simple enough: the anti-gun lunatics saw the chance to score points through the general public's nervousness about firearms, and the politicians were too nervous to stand up for their supposedly principles. While this can certainly be counted a victory of sorts for the anti-gun lobby, and exposes the yellow underbelly of certain politicians, it doesn't affect the overall picture much at all.

Mainly, that's because the new law says nothing about concealed firearms. In an urban environment, concealed carry is the polite thing to do. Carrying openly makes people nervous, and that can have unintended and unfortunate consequences. But if you are carrying concealed, there's no issue.

Proponents of gun control prefer to blame their legislative failures on the gun lobby's campaign war chest rather than to look in the mirror. By casting their opponents as corrupt and callous, the gun-control crowd avoids the unpleasant admission that its hysterical fear of guns isn't shared by mainstream Coloradans, that severe regulations don't bother criminals and that emotional tirades wither when held to intellectual scrutiny. Moreover, if pro-gun legislators are mind-numbed robots captivated by campaign contributions, what does that say about anti-gun legislators?

The city of Denver plans to sue the state of Colorado over new gun laws. City attorneys say they will go to court later this week.

Members of the City Council, the city attorney's office, the district attorney's office and the Police Department met Wednesday at the council's weekly safety committee meeting. They discussed what could be done to preserve Denver's ability to regulates guns within its boundaries, something Assistant City Attorney David Broadwell said the city has done since the 1860s. The group then went into a closed-door session to further discuss strategies.

Senate Bill 25 preempts some local firearms laws, based on the legislature's responsibility to protect the most important of all statewide concerns: the constitutional rights of Colorado's citizens.

On Tuesday, March 18th, 2003, Colorado Governor Bill Owens signed into law a bill that was 10 years in the making. From the first salvo, fired in 1994's session, to 2003, it has been a contentious battle, spanning the entire careers of politicians and forcing a wide-ranging debate on the subject of citizens carrying concealed handguns. Below is an overview of what SB24 will mean to Colorado.

It's starting to look like this is a real issue with one or two ranges, not a national conspiracy.  Still, if you're in the area you might want to check out the latest. 

UPDATE: Also, Michael Bane has his promised Monday update, and it has the details.