Colorado

One of the Democratic state legislators in Colorado has had a recall petition filed.  The petition includes more than twice the required number of signatures, and something like 3,000 more signatures than that legislator received in his last election. 

On the other hand, one of the other recent recall attempts failed. 

Note that recalls are deliberately hard to do.  They require a lot of signatures relative to the voting population, they aren't run concurrently with the normal election process, the deadlines are short, and the signatures can be challenged. 

A cabdriver in Denver calls the police because his fare was taking firearms to a gun show (warning: really annoying autoplay audio ads at the link).  The police arrived and arrested the man, along with several shotguns, because he had a foreign accent and they thought he was a terrorist. 

It turns out his fare was Daniele Perazzi, president of an Italian shotgun manufacturer.  As you might expect, such a man has lawyers and was released in short order, though reports are that law enforcement ordered him out of the state.  If true, there doesn't seem to be any legal basis for the order. 

This is of course an embarrassment for our country, which is supposed to be free.

UPDATE: It seems there's some doubt about this story.

UPDATE: Perazzi official press release.

UPDATE: Woman fabricated tale of questioning.  No hint of what the motive was.  Bizarre.

Sheriffs (54 out of 62), manufacturers, retailers, and individuals have filed suit against the recent Colorado gun control laws.  Dave Kopel is representing the Sheriffs and has a brief statement.  Publicola comments at length here.

Colorado's Democratic-controlled state legislature is ramming through an election bill that critics say will open the door to voter fraud and intimidation.

The "Voter Access and Modernized Elections Act" is expected to pass the legislature this week. Democrats control both chambers of the legislature, as well as the governor's mansion, meaning the bill could pass without a single Republican vote.

Key provisions include:

• Same-day voting after registration
• Mandatory mail-in ballots
• Eliminate local polling places
  

In short, it's a recipe for voter fraud and intimidation.

Read the whole thing.

More details here.

No word yet on where, but they say they will reveal more after the NRA's annual meeting this weekend.

Don't be the guy who gives them their story.

Read the whole thing.

UPDATE: Looks like it's too late.

After passing draconian gun control laws targeting honest gun owners and manufacturers, the Colorado legislature seems to think they might as well pass more gun control laws... since they have already pissed off all the gun owners in the state, why not piss them off even more?  It's not like honest gun owners will vote more than once, or that there's some community of gun owners they haven't already motivated to pull out all the stops in 2014.

The latest bills would require domestic-violence offenders to surrender their firearms, create a task force to study ways to prevent those with mental health problems from obtaining guns, and ban gun owners from obtaining a concealed-carry permit via an online class.

So... they create a task force NOW, after they have already passed all sorts of laws that were supposed to fix the problem of the mentally ill obtaining guns?  In the military, this would be described as a "Ready, Fire, Aim" situation.  Joking aside, though, this means they aren't done yet.  In a few weeks or a few months, this task force will come back with recommendations for even more gun control laws.

They also want to make it illegal to get a concealed-carry permit via an online class.  Why?  Seriously, why?  The requirements for concealed-carry permits usually include several forms of identification, fingerprinting, a thorough background check, and (at least in Texas) a practical shooting qualification... none of which is going to be changed by letting people attend a lecture about the legal issues of firearms and self-defense from the comfort of their home rather than spending hours in a classroom.

Finally, the domestic violence issue.  At first glance, this looks ok -- after all, people convicted of domestic violence offenses are barred by federal law from possessing firearms.  Why not have a legal process to confiscate them? 

One big objection: not all those barred from possessing firearms by reason of domestic violence are permanently barred.  Federal law also covers those who are currently subject to a domestic violence restraining order -- orders which are handed out like candy in divorce court -- and those orders can expire or be overturned.  If the police confiscate the lawfully-owned firearms of such a person, he will likely never get them back, or receive any compensation for the confiscation of his property.

Why is this a better process than allowing an individual in those circumstances to transfer his firearms to a friend for temporary safekeeping until the legal issues are settled, or to a gun dealer for sale?

Oh, wait, Colorado just outlawed private transfers without a background check, didn't they?

Well, that explains that.

Between dealer checks and universal background checks, Colorado knows -- loosely now, but with more precision in the future -- exactly what guns its law-abiding residents own, and if you ever get divorced, you can expect the police to raid your home and confiscate every firearm they find.  If you are in their database as owning a firearm that they don't find, you'll be charged with an unlawful (un-background-checked) transfer. 

If you are found with a firearm not on their list, better hope you can prove you got it before the law was passed, or they will add an unlawful transfer charge to the unlawful possession charge.. since as soon as you got that restraining order as part of your divorce proceedings, they raided your home before you had the chance to arrange for legal disposal of the firearms you lawfully owned up until the wife decided the grass was greener on the neighbor's lawn.

If you ask me, the Colorado legislature has decided they can save their asses in 2014 -- or earlier, if any recall votes take place -- by ensuring the Colorado gun owners will self-deport rather than vote them out.  And if not, well, you usually lose the right to vote when you are convicted of a felony, even a bullshit one.

Michael Bane links to Jim Rawles, who has a list of problems with the magazine ban.  Read the whole thing if you are going to be anywhere near Colorado with a firearm.  It's interesting for more than just Colorado residents, too, since it's very instructive for the sort of issues that can arise with a badly drafted law. 

To briefly summarize, there are obvious problems and conflicts with the 4th Amendment, 5th Amendment, and the basic presumptions of due process of law and innocent until proven guilty. 

The problems with the New York laws have already been widely publicized, including mandating 7 round magazines -- which don't exist for most firearms -- and neglecting to exclude law enforcement from the law, thus making every police officer a felon for carrying his official duty pistol.

The Connecticut gun control laws did not fare much better.  Their magazine limit is still 10 rounds, but you can keep your old magazines and load them fully... if you are at home, or the shooting range.  Or a criminal who ignores the law.  If you are planning to leave your house to commit a massacre, you need to make sure you only load 10 rounds in your magazines, even if they could hold more. 

If you forget, you'll face an additional 3 months in jail.  On top of multiple murder charges, that doesn't seem like much of a deterrent.  On the other hand, to a law-abiding gun owner, 3 months in jail -- plus a lost job, 3 months of lost income, and so on -- is one heck of a penalty for forgetting to unload your magazine to "street legal" levels whenever you leave your house.

On the national level, Schumer's S.649 would make you a felon for going shooting with a friend and letting him borrow your rifle.

None of this will make anyone safer.

You may have heard of the Toomey-Manchin "compromise".  That's a watered-down version of Schumer's legislation.  It's not a positive for gun owners, except in being less-bad than other possible legislation. 

Toomey-Manchin won't make anyone safer either.  Criminals will be able to get firearms.  Honest folk will be put at risk for technical violations of laws that criminals will ignore. 

More than half of Colorado's elected sheriffs are planning to mount a legal challenge to the state's sweeping new gun restrictions.

The Denver Post reports that 37 of the state's 62 sheriffs will sue to overturn laws passed in March that set limits on ammunition magazines and expand background checks for firearms.

"More than half" is a lot.  That they are sheriffs is also significant.  Why are sheriffs challenging these laws?  I don't know.  Perhaps because there is Supreme Court precedent saying local law enforcement officials cannot be forced to enforce federal laws they do not wish to enforce?

That ruling said specifically you couldn't impose an unfunded mandate on state law enforcement -- you could entice them with federal money but not order them to enforce your laws.  Would a similar argument work against a state law?  Not directly, I suspect.

Obama's gun control push is going to generate a LOT of legal challenges to keep an eye on.

Hat tip to Jeff.

HiViz Shooting Systems is leaving Colorado following the passage of gun control laws in that state.  They manufacture sights. 

HiViz Shooting Systems (a division of North Pass Ltd.), announces plans to relocate operations out of the state of Colorado due to recent changes in Colorado state gun control legislation.  HiViz President and CEO Phillip Howe, states that talks are currently under way with officials of a neighboring state regarding the move.

Mr. Howe comments, "I make this announcement with mixed emotions. Colorado is a beautiful state with great people, but we cannot in clear conscience support with our taxes a state that has proven through recent legislation a willingness to infringe upon the constitutional rights of our customer base." Mr. Howe notes that prior to the changes in law in Colorado, he made several attempts to persuade state officials via emails and telephone calls to proceed slowly with gun control legislation that would impact individual shooters and the shooting industry as a whole.

Although the relocation will be expensive and time consuming, he adds, "It is in the best interest of our company and our customers." Starting with corporate headquarters, the operations will be moved over an extended period of time ensuring no interruption of services to its customer base, and HiViz states that the majority of its employees will make the move with the corporate operations. More details regarding the location and timing of the relocation will be announced as details are finalized.

In addition to HiViz, a number of shooting competitions are canceling events in Colorado due to the legal risk, as is the Outdoor Channel.

... you should know how it works.  Especially if you are a state Senator, and your "signature issue" is gun control legislation.  Otherwise, people make fun of you on the internet when you say that banning magazines will result in people running out of bullets.

Clue: you can reload magazines and use them again.

The Instapundit weighs in, too.

... me, I don't believe in coincidence any more than he does.

Here's a summary (Hickenlooper is the current governor of Colorado, for those who don't know):

1. Criminal is sentenced to 8 years in prison
2. Criminal joins a white supremacist gang in prison
3. Criminal attacks prison guard and gets 4 more years added to his sentence
4. Criminal mysteriously benefits from sentencing error so he doesn't have to serve those 4 extra years
5. Criminal's father testifies before the legislature about "the harm that solitary confinement has done to his son"
6. Hickenlooper signs draconian gun control laws
7. Criminal is released by mistake after 8 years
8. Criminal acquires firearm somehow
   
9. Criminal allegedly kills Colorado prison official
   
10. Criminal's father is revealed to have close ties to Hickenlooper

Note that this is a prohibited person -- he's not allowed to touch a firearm, and he earned more time in prison just by touching one.  He can't pass a background check, but he got a firearm somehow.  I believe Colorado already has laws requiring background checks at gun shows in place, so he didn't get one from a gun show.  Would he not have gotten a firearm if gun control laws had been passed sooner? 

Does anyone really think he would have been stopped?

Or that a screwdriver, steak knife, sledgehammer, 3000-lb explosive battering ram (aka, SUV) or a few gallons of gasoline would not have solved his problem?

I don't.  And that's one reason I oppose gun control. 

Another reason: what finally did stop him was a husband and wife, both armed.

The failure of those two measures [private transfer ban, redundant gun trafficking ban] would be a major setback for the White House and its allies, who have acknowledged that two other proposals -- bans on assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines -- are not politically viable.

I bet that came as a surprise.

President Obama plans to visit a police academy in Colorado on Wednesday to renew an urgency to overhaul the nation?s gun laws that has ebbed in the more than 100 days since the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School. Obama and his allies have not been able to leverage nationwide support for the proposals into a will to pass them on Capitol Hill.

I wonder if there will be a protest there?

John at No Lawyers - Only Guns and Money notes an interesting coincidence.  The head of the Denver field office, Andrew Traver, previously got national attention for being Obama's nominee for director of the whole agency.  As you might suspect from one of Obama's nominees, the man is very much pro gun-control.  And now there are all sorts of gun control laws in Colorado. 

It's speculation, but you have to wonder if Traver had something to do with that.

I've written on this now quite a bit, but we are nearing the progressive end game.  States with Democrat-majority legislatures are going to push through measures to deprive their citizens of Constitutional protections regardless of what their constituencies want, because the left is all about centralizing government, and the allegiance of the contemporary Democrat state legislator is to the national Party.  Obama and the progressives are essentially running Democrat-led states.

If we survive 8 years of Obama without new gun control laws, and punish his minions who voted for gun control in their next election, we will be in good shape for the future.  If we fail to block significant new federal laws, if we lose too many states, if we fail to punish legislators who vote for gun control, we will look back at the good old days of Obama's first term with longing.

Some of you are saying we'll fight this in the courts, and we will.  But let's not make too much of our chances there.  We won the Heller case by 1 vote.   Obama will appoint any new vacancies that open up for the next 4 years.  No matter what lies they tell during their confirmation hearings, Obama will not be appointing any pro-gun Justices.  We can, and have, used the courts to our advantage, but we can't count on them to stop this offensive. 

In Colorado, we have probably lost the fight.  The Democratic Machine has done what the Democratic Machine does: cut deals, break campaign promises, steamroller the opposition, and ram through what the national party says to ram through.  It can't hurt to tell Hickenlooper to veto the legislation, but it's not likely to work.

We do have an advantage, though.  In order to do this, the Democratic party had to take off the mask.  After this, they can't hide.  After this, they know we are coming for them at the ballot box -- by recall, if possible, and in the general election if not.  We know who they are, and we know how they will vote when the chips are down.

Apparently Gov Hickenlooper has announced that he will sign HB 1224 on Wednesday. We were asked for our reaction, and here is what we said:

We have said all along that based on the legal problems and uncertainties in the bill, as well as general principle, we will have no choice but to leave if the Governor signs this into law. We will start our transition out of the state almost immediately, and we will prioritize moving magazine manufacturing operations first. We expect the first PMAGs to be made outside CO within 30 days of the signing, with the rest to follow in phases. We will likely become a multi-state operation as a result of this move, and not all locations have been selected. We have made some initial contacts and evaluated a list of new potential locations for additional manufacturing and the new company headquarters, and we will begin talks with various state representatives in earnest if the Governor indeed signs this legislation. Although we are agile for a company of our size, it is still a significant footprint, and we will perform this move in a manner that is best for the company and our employees.

It is disappointing to us that money and a social agenda from outside the state have apparently penetrated the American West to control our legislature and Governor, but we feel confident that Colorado residents can still take the state back through recalls, ballot initiatives, and the 2014 election to undo these wrongs against responsible Citizens.

On the bright side, at least one sheriff is refusing to enforce the new laws. 

There's still time to contact him and ask him to veto instead.  It doesn't hurt to ask, even if you're out of state.  It would be nice to deny the anti-gunners momentum.

We need to flip three Senators, and we've got two expressing doubts.  There's one persuadable.   Even if you're not in Colorado, a polite letter opposing gun control might make a difference.

The problem is that the legislation bans shotguns that can accept more 8 shotgun shells.  Many popular shotguns can accept a magazine extender.  It's a simple metal tube with an adapter to screw into the shotgun.  Because it is "readily convertible", any shotgun that can accept such an accessory is considered an assault weapon is banned.

For more details and contact information, see Michael Bane.

Hat tip to David Hardy.

Publicola has details:

• SB 197 (Domestic violence)
• SB 196 (Assault weapons liability act)
• SB 195 (Concealed carry permit changes)

It seems to me that this is Obama's pushing for something, anything, to pass somewhere (other than New York) so he can claim some sort of victory.  Colorado is targeted for two reasons: it's sort of a Western state, and it was the state where the Aurora "joker" murder took place.   

If Obama can put enough pressure on state legislatures to pass gun control there, it will look like a trend to other state legislatures, and he can maybe parley that astroturfed "trend" into national action.

Since the original set of legislation is running into strong opposition (thanks, Magpul!) he's decided to throw some more laws against the wall to try to make sure that something sticks.

The governor of Colorado may be wavering on new gun control laws:

According to coloradopeakpolitics.com, the governor of Colorado, John Hickenlooper is wavering on a proposed magazine capacity limit that is making its way through the Colorado state legislature.

Since magazine giant Magpul, which is currently operating in CO, has announced they will pack up their operations, move across state lines and take hundreds (possibly thousands) of jobs with them and since there has been a huge national fallout over comments made by Democratic lawmaker Joe Salazar regarding women with guns and rape (see video below), the governor is apparently considering not supporting new gun control bills.

It wouldn't hurt to contact him and politely ask him to veto anything that makes it out of the legislature. 

Remember, when we show up, we win.  But we have to show up.

The American Spectator has a special report on Colorado's proposed new gun control laws.

It seems there are Democratic Senators who might be convinced to vote no.  He has the contact information.  The vote is today.

... but not guns, because even if you think you're going to be raped, you may not be.  At least if you listen to this idiot politician who thinks a woman is going to randomly shoot at someone she thinks is following her.  I wonder if this guy makes a habit of following attractive women around campus?  He certainly seems worried about being accidentally shot.  It is absolutely amazing to me how persistent the blood in the streets meme is, even after decades with no evidence to support it.

I am a Libertarian and a gun owner.  I trust women with guns.  I'm not afraid of being mistaken for a rapist and shot.

RedState has contact information for him, if you want to give him a piece of your mind.  I won't say be polite.  Don't be threatening.