A Nazi - a friggin' Nazi - is serving a life sentence because he killed a few hundred civilians & some Italians are protesting it.
"To his supporters, Erich Priebke is an old man who paid for his mistakes and should be pardoned. To his foes, the 90-year-old convicted Nazi war criminal, who is serving a life sentence under house arrest, should never be free again."
House arrest???? The bastard should be serving his sentence under a house not in one.
"Priebke, a former SS captain, was convicted in 1997 for a wartime massacre in which 335 civilians were killed. He says he was only following orders.
'This execution was a tragedy for us,' Priebke said in an interview published Thursday in the right-wing daily Il Giornale. 'I don't feel the responsibility to repent for something I didn't want to do. I was against it. I had to obey like every soldier must do."
I bet the execution was a tragedy for the civilian victims & their families. & didn't anyone clue him in that the "just following orders" excuse was ruled bullshit a long time ago?
"Priebke's supporters insist the German national should be pardoned because of his age and because his crimes date to 60 years ago. They say his human rights are being violated. "
They want to pardon a convicted mass murderer. A convicted Nazi mass murderer. A convicted Nazi SS Captain who admits to mass murder. His age? Have they thought of how old any of hsi victims would be? They claim his human rights are being violated. These people would see someone swing for carrying an unregistaered pistol yet they're worried about a convicted Nazi/mass murderer's human rights being encroached because he's living under house arrest?
"Priebke's detention is against the Italian constitution and all principles of civilization,' Giachini said in an interview Thursday, referring to a constitutional provision saying penalties cannot be contrary to a sense of humanity."
Well if the first part of the sentence is true then it's bloody friggin' obvious that they need a new constitution in Italy & we need new principles of civilization. But didn't it strike anyone of these Nazi defenders that a murderer under house arrest for life only offends a sense of humanity because it implies he's still comfortable & alive?
"The March 24, 1944, massacre was ordered in retaliation for a bomb attack by Italian resistance fighters that killed 33 German soldiers. The victims, who included old men, young boys, Jews and Roman Catholic priests, were led one-by-one into the Ardeatine Caves outside Rome and shot to death.
Priebke has admitted to shooting two people and helping round up the victims. He has said he would have faced a firing squad had he refused."
He should face a firing squad for his compliance with an order to murder civilians. & since he pbviously has no problem killing old men then he shouldn't have any objections when they blindfold him.
this bastard lived in Argentina until he was extradicted in 1994. That's 50 years longer than any of the old men & boys he killed lived.
Now I might feel a little different about all this if there was some question as to his guilt: if there wasn't a positive I.D. of him or if he swore he was innocent - but the friggin' bastard admits to commanding the troops that did it as well as pulling the trigger twice himself! He's trying to claim that he was juts following orders & therefore isn't responsible for his crimes.
I can understand how he thought that would work - cops here do all sorts of unconstituional & vile things because they follow orders. So it's natural that in a country such as Italy he thought correctly that it would work.
Which is why we must nip this in the bud. Any & all Italians who happen to read this could do us all a big favor: get the death penalty re-instated in Italy, review his sentence & have this bastard shot. Have him shot in the arms & legs a few times before you gut shoot him & leave him to die. & then soundly bitch-slap all those who protested his inhumane treatment under house arrest. Take them to the victims' graves & then to their surviing relatives. & after hearing stories from eyewitnesses about what the bastard did then have them try to reason with them & convince them why the bastard should be freed from the inhumane treatment of house arrest. Then let the victims' relatives bitch-slap them.
Hopefully Kim du Toit will be back soon as he's much better at these kinds of rants than I am. Then again he is in Germany. Maybe he could make a day trip & straighten these misguided Italians out. Besides, that give our Ambassodor to Italy something to do for the next few weeks. Well, after the U.S. Marines save Italy from Kim.
Thursday, March 04, 2004
KABA.com has outdone itself. They've done some digging, found & posted the testimony from the president of the NRA during the debates over the National Firearms Act of 1934.
I'll give you this question & answer to whet your appetite:
"The following question was asked by Congressman CLEMENT C. DICKINSON, Missouri, of the Committee on Ways and Means:
'Mr. DICKINSON. I will ask you whether or not this bill interferes in any way with the right of a person to keep and bear arms or his right to be secure in his person against unreasonable search; in other words, do you believe this bill is unconstitutional or that it violates any constitutional provision?'
...'Mr. FREDERICK. I have not given it any study from that point of view. I will be glad to submit in writing my views on that subject, but I do think it is a subject which deserves serious thought."
Read the whole thing. & please keep in mind the NFA of '34 originally included pistols but they were excluded from the final draft of the bill as there was concern that the people may not particularly stand for it.
I'll give you this question & answer to whet your appetite:
"The following question was asked by Congressman CLEMENT C. DICKINSON, Missouri, of the Committee on Ways and Means:
'Mr. DICKINSON. I will ask you whether or not this bill interferes in any way with the right of a person to keep and bear arms or his right to be secure in his person against unreasonable search; in other words, do you believe this bill is unconstitutional or that it violates any constitutional provision?'
...'Mr. FREDERICK. I have not given it any study from that point of view. I will be glad to submit in writing my views on that subject, but I do think it is a subject which deserves serious thought."
Read the whole thing. & please keep in mind the NFA of '34 originally included pistols but they were excluded from the final draft of the bill as there was concern that the people may not particularly stand for it.
Wednesday, March 03, 2004
Damn. Helluva week wasn't it?
I'll have more in a day or two but just wanted to jot down a few thoughts in no particular order:
The NRA actually did the right thing. Of course they waited till right before the vote to make up their mind to do the right thing, & odds are that they acted out of self preservation as many people would have left them in a heartbeat if their gamble had backfired. But still they did the right thing in the end.
Something screwy was going on. There were enough votes in the Senate to pass the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. A filibuster might have been attempted but then again considering how many voted for cloture it's not certain it would have succeeded. So what do they do? They get the motion for cloture passed & then announce a deal at 11 p.m. EST that instead of 30 hours with limited amendments & Frist being able to shoot down an amendment all by his lonesome, they're gonna chat about things for 4 days & allow damn near any & all amendments to be proposed. WTF?!?!?!? I don't know who's coming up with the strategies for our side, but I'd love to play some poker with them.
It may not be over. DiFi wants the AWB extended & expanded. She thinks (& she's probably right) that she has enough votes in the Senate to pass it & it very well could pass the House. Bush hasn't vetoed anything yet & I doubt he'd veto something he promised to sign. So don't be surprised if DiFi soemhow gets the AWB on the table again. I doubt it would be on its own as offering it to a bill that everyone wants would be the way to do it, but then again proposing it by itself might happen. Don't mean to rain on anyone's parade but unless I'm missing something in the Senate rules we have to accept that it's possible it'll be voted on again.
The AWBextension didn't pass. I've heard Senators, gun control advocates & even a news story on some AM radio station say that it passed (actually the AM radio station was real screwed up - it claimed the AWB extension was passed as in it was now law & the AWB itself wasn't going to sunset in September). What passed was the AWB extension being added onto a bill that was yet to be voted on. Not that we shouldn't punish those who voted to add it on at the polls this &/or any November or that it doesn't have support in the Senate, but adding something onto a bill you want to see voted down is not the same thing as passing a bill outright.
Y'all made a difference. You called your senators & you called the NRA. It got the NRA to address accusations of treachery for the first time ever & it pressured them into doing the right thing. With the Senators we may or may not have been as influential as some were lost causes. But we let them know that we were not only watching, but we were reacting.
Blogs, internet message borads, Forums, non-mainstream news sites & C-Span2's streaming feed = a whole new world.
10 years ago we wouldn't have known what was going on unless we were in DC watching the Senate in person or had a friend who was a lobbyist &/or Senator. Now we can cuss the bastards out in real time & call "bullshit" as they lie - not merely afterwards. whent hey figure this out I'm sure they'll try to figure out a way to shut us down: politicians don't like being watched in action. But for now we have the most usefultool weapon that we've ever had that doesn't spit lead: connectibility. we can watch what's being said & done while looking up the Senate rules ot make sure it's legal & then e-mail each other & post on Forums & Message Boards to let eveyone know something's wrong (or right).
10 years ago you needed a full time lobbyist to know what was going on & why. Now a lobbyist is still a good asset to have, but a lot of the info we'd have been missing is now right here on our screens.
Schumer is an irreversible ass.
So what will happen? Who knows? But it's much easier to keep track of things & much, much easier to organize & carry out actions that could sway things.
Go read SayUncle & GeekWithA.45. The Countertop Chronicles & Triggerfinger have some interesting stuff as well. KABA.com was & is an irreplaceble source of news. The High Road had play by play posts & really helped spread the word. Alphecca was doing his best a susual making sure we knew not to trust everything we read in the papers, as well as spreading the idea that action beats inaction everytime. & for their (& many others') efforts to keep us all informed hit their tip jars &/or wish lists. If they don't have them, write them & tell them to get one or the other if not both.
I'll have more in the next few days. Right now I need to catch up (& clean up) with the mess I left untended while I was watching what was going on in the Senate.
I'll have more in a day or two but just wanted to jot down a few thoughts in no particular order:
The NRA actually did the right thing. Of course they waited till right before the vote to make up their mind to do the right thing, & odds are that they acted out of self preservation as many people would have left them in a heartbeat if their gamble had backfired. But still they did the right thing in the end.
Something screwy was going on. There were enough votes in the Senate to pass the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. A filibuster might have been attempted but then again considering how many voted for cloture it's not certain it would have succeeded. So what do they do? They get the motion for cloture passed & then announce a deal at 11 p.m. EST that instead of 30 hours with limited amendments & Frist being able to shoot down an amendment all by his lonesome, they're gonna chat about things for 4 days & allow damn near any & all amendments to be proposed. WTF?!?!?!? I don't know who's coming up with the strategies for our side, but I'd love to play some poker with them.
It may not be over. DiFi wants the AWB extended & expanded. She thinks (& she's probably right) that she has enough votes in the Senate to pass it & it very well could pass the House. Bush hasn't vetoed anything yet & I doubt he'd veto something he promised to sign. So don't be surprised if DiFi soemhow gets the AWB on the table again. I doubt it would be on its own as offering it to a bill that everyone wants would be the way to do it, but then again proposing it by itself might happen. Don't mean to rain on anyone's parade but unless I'm missing something in the Senate rules we have to accept that it's possible it'll be voted on again.
The AWBextension didn't pass. I've heard Senators, gun control advocates & even a news story on some AM radio station say that it passed (actually the AM radio station was real screwed up - it claimed the AWB extension was passed as in it was now law & the AWB itself wasn't going to sunset in September). What passed was the AWB extension being added onto a bill that was yet to be voted on. Not that we shouldn't punish those who voted to add it on at the polls this &/or any November or that it doesn't have support in the Senate, but adding something onto a bill you want to see voted down is not the same thing as passing a bill outright.
Y'all made a difference. You called your senators & you called the NRA. It got the NRA to address accusations of treachery for the first time ever & it pressured them into doing the right thing. With the Senators we may or may not have been as influential as some were lost causes. But we let them know that we were not only watching, but we were reacting.
Blogs, internet message borads, Forums, non-mainstream news sites & C-Span2's streaming feed = a whole new world.
10 years ago we wouldn't have known what was going on unless we were in DC watching the Senate in person or had a friend who was a lobbyist &/or Senator. Now we can cuss the bastards out in real time & call "bullshit" as they lie - not merely afterwards. whent hey figure this out I'm sure they'll try to figure out a way to shut us down: politicians don't like being watched in action. But for now we have the most useful
10 years ago you needed a full time lobbyist to know what was going on & why. Now a lobbyist is still a good asset to have, but a lot of the info we'd have been missing is now right here on our screens.
Schumer is an irreversible ass.
So what will happen? Who knows? But it's much easier to keep track of things & much, much easier to organize & carry out actions that could sway things.
Go read SayUncle & GeekWithA.45. The Countertop Chronicles & Triggerfinger have some interesting stuff as well. KABA.com was & is an irreplaceble source of news. The High Road had play by play posts & really helped spread the word. Alphecca was doing his best a susual making sure we knew not to trust everything we read in the papers, as well as spreading the idea that action beats inaction everytime. & for their (& many others') efforts to keep us all informed hit their tip jars &/or wish lists. If they don't have them, write them & tell them to get one or the other if not both.
I'll have more in the next few days. Right now I need to catch up (& clean up) with the mess I left untended while I was watching what was going on in the Senate.
Tuesday, March 02, 2004
I'm in a rush so forgive the brevity...
This bill has an extension of the assault weapons ban & the McCain-Reed gun show amendments attached to it. Cleaning it up in ther House is too risky & there's not anything solid that would guarantee we can kill it in the House. we have to stop it in the Senate.
Do not believe that it can be worked out later on. Stripping amendemnts in the Hous eis a very tricky process & our support in the House is not nearly as solid as the NRA would have you believe.
Call your Senators - call not e-mail - & let them know you want this damned thing killed. Ask them to withdraw it from the table if that's still possible or to vote against it.
800) 648-3516 or (202) 224-3121. That'll put you in touch with the Senate - just ask for your Senator. Go here if you need to find out who they are.
Again it is imperative that we stop this bill from passing the Senate. Call your Senators now!
This bill has an extension of the assault weapons ban & the McCain-Reed gun show amendments attached to it. Cleaning it up in ther House is too risky & there's not anything solid that would guarantee we can kill it in the House. we have to stop it in the Senate.
Do not believe that it can be worked out later on. Stripping amendemnts in the Hous eis a very tricky process & our support in the House is not nearly as solid as the NRA would have you believe.
Call your Senators - call not e-mail - & let them know you want this damned thing killed. Ask them to withdraw it from the table if that's still possible or to vote against it.
800) 648-3516 or (202) 224-3121. That'll put you in touch with the Senate - just ask for your Senator. Go here if you need to find out who they are.
Again it is imperative that we stop this bill from passing the Senate. Call your Senators now!
things should start in the Senate at around 9:30 a.m. EST. Go to the Geek & Uncle for updates.
& be prepared to change the message to your senators to "vote against the bill" should the "assault weapons" ban or gun show amendments be added on. If either of those gun control laws are succefully added to the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act we won't have long to call & try to sawy Senators to kill it in the Senate, so have ye olde speed dial ready.
But watch the Geek & Uncle as they'll let you know what's happening.
& be prepared to change the message to your senators to "vote against the bill" should the "assault weapons" ban or gun show amendments be added on. If either of those gun control laws are succefully added to the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act we won't have long to call & try to sawy Senators to kill it in the Senate, so have ye olde speed dial ready.
But watch the Geek & Uncle as they'll let you know what's happening.
Monday, March 01, 2004
There have been many many arguments over the past week. Most of which were betwixt gun owners about what startegy is best & who is working in our interests.
Later on this week we'll know more & be able to hash things out again. There'll be plenty of time for the squabbling that is so unfortunately neccesary.
Right now we don't have time for that. The Senate will vote tomorrow morning on amendments to the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. Those amendments will include an extension of the "assault weapons" ban & a bill that will negatively affect gun shows. There may be more. I wouldn't be surprised if another amendment was proposed that could arguably do more damage to the Right to Arms than the two previously mentioned.
It is not certain that all the amendments will be attached but it is likely that at least one of them will be. Then comes the vote on the entire package - the Lawful Protection in Arms Act as amended.
Some of y'all have been here before & have a pretty good idea about my views. & Some will agree with me, others won't. That's part of life. Disagreements happen even between the closest of friends.
All the info that's available on the issue has been laid out for your dissemination between here, GeekWithA.45 & SayUncle. Between the three of us I doubt there's much we missed.
Now some of you may believe that an amended bill can be cleaned up in the House. I don't & I think I've made the case that our support in the House is not nearly as strong as some would like to believe.
The only chance we have is to stop these gun control amendments from being added in the Senate & barring that to kill the entire legislative package in the Senate. If it goes to the House with gun control on it then we will lose.
So I ask that you call your Senators & deliver a very simple message:
I want a clean bill or no bill from the Senate. If any gun control laws are passed I'll withdraw my support for you & your party. I will not accept excuses, even that you voted against them. If you & your party want my vote in November of '04, '06 or '08 then you'll chat with your fellow Senators & convince them to not pass any gun control laws. If you vote for gun control you'll lose my support, but if any gun control laws are passed you & your entire party will lose my support no matter how you vote.
Make this known to your Senators. You can reach them at (800) 648-3516 or (202) 224-3121.
As well as to VP Dick Cheney
vice.president@whitehouse.gov
(202) 456-9000
& make sure the NRA knows you don't want them taking any risks. Tell them if any gun control laws are passed you're dropping your membership &/or support of them & their state affiliates.
Now if you wish to sit around & tell yourself that the NRA knows what it's doing (that the Senate will do the right thing & if not then the House will sort it out) then fine. I cannot convince you if I haven't already.
But if you'd at least want to attempt to do something to protect your Right to Arms then call & tell them what you want & what you will & will not accept.
The choice is yours. But if in October I still cannot buy brand new factory fresh 11 round magazines or a folding stock for a Ruger 10/22 then don't you dare come bitchin' to me when someone wants to ban your wabbit gun.
Later on this week we'll know more & be able to hash things out again. There'll be plenty of time for the squabbling that is so unfortunately neccesary.
Right now we don't have time for that. The Senate will vote tomorrow morning on amendments to the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. Those amendments will include an extension of the "assault weapons" ban & a bill that will negatively affect gun shows. There may be more. I wouldn't be surprised if another amendment was proposed that could arguably do more damage to the Right to Arms than the two previously mentioned.
It is not certain that all the amendments will be attached but it is likely that at least one of them will be. Then comes the vote on the entire package - the Lawful Protection in Arms Act as amended.
Some of y'all have been here before & have a pretty good idea about my views. & Some will agree with me, others won't. That's part of life. Disagreements happen even between the closest of friends.
All the info that's available on the issue has been laid out for your dissemination between here, GeekWithA.45 & SayUncle. Between the three of us I doubt there's much we missed.
Now some of you may believe that an amended bill can be cleaned up in the House. I don't & I think I've made the case that our support in the House is not nearly as strong as some would like to believe.
The only chance we have is to stop these gun control amendments from being added in the Senate & barring that to kill the entire legislative package in the Senate. If it goes to the House with gun control on it then we will lose.
So I ask that you call your Senators & deliver a very simple message:
I want a clean bill or no bill from the Senate. If any gun control laws are passed I'll withdraw my support for you & your party. I will not accept excuses, even that you voted against them. If you & your party want my vote in November of '04, '06 or '08 then you'll chat with your fellow Senators & convince them to not pass any gun control laws. If you vote for gun control you'll lose my support, but if any gun control laws are passed you & your entire party will lose my support no matter how you vote.
Make this known to your Senators. You can reach them at (800) 648-3516 or (202) 224-3121.
As well as to VP Dick Cheney
vice.president@whitehouse.gov
(202) 456-9000
& make sure the NRA knows you don't want them taking any risks. Tell them if any gun control laws are passed you're dropping your membership &/or support of them & their state affiliates.
Now if you wish to sit around & tell yourself that the NRA knows what it's doing (that the Senate will do the right thing & if not then the House will sort it out) then fine. I cannot convince you if I haven't already.
But if you'd at least want to attempt to do something to protect your Right to Arms then call & tell them what you want & what you will & will not accept.
The choice is yours. But if in October I still cannot buy brand new factory fresh 11 round magazines or a folding stock for a Ruger 10/22 then don't you dare come bitchin' to me when someone wants to ban your wabbit gun.
I just saw this from RMGO & thought I would pass it on. I'll paste it below in it's entirety.
"Rocky Mountain Gun Owners
Oppose Gun Control -- Kill S.1805
March 1, 2004, 1700 hrs Mountain - Please read the following communication and then call your US Senators.
Senator Wayne Allard can be reached at (202) 224-5941.
Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell can be reached at (202) 224-5852.
Also call the NRA -- tell them that S.1805 already has gun control attached to it (the Kohl Trigger Locks amendment), and, according to former NRA muckety muck Neal Knox, "Let me assure you: S. 1805 WILL CONTAIN A LOT MORE GUN CONTROL."
Call the NRA-ILA immediately toll-free at 800-392-8683 and/or e-mail them at Federal-Affairs@nrahq.org
Urge the NRA to pull the plug and kill S.1805 in the Senate, before it has any more gun control on it. Tell them to STOP approving anti-gun amendments like Kohl's gun lock-up law.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More and more it's looking like S.1805 is a turkey that can't be saved.
We are already facing the ridiculous reality that the "gun liability" bill, which was supposed to PROTECT dealers and manufacturers from baseless lawsuits, now has a brand new liability built into it; penalties if handguns are not provided with gun locks.
As you know, we have fought and defeated similar proposals that would require that you render your guns useless, here in Colorado.
Though we've defeated this kind of law in the Colorado legislature, we are having this irrational requirement shoved down our throats by the Feds. What's worse, it seems like the NRA has bought off on this crackpot scheme.
In an alert dated Feb 27 '04 the NRA describes the Kohl amendment which mandates this new intrusion into your rights this way:
"The Kohl amendment is much less restrictive and also provides liability protection for gun owners."
But that "protection" is only for people who lock up their guns and render them useless!
If you read the amendment, it only provides liability protection IF YOU LOCK UP YOUR GUNS. In other words, the NRA is buying into the argument of the gun-grabbers -- that locking up your gun makes you safer.
According to Professor John Lott (in "More Guns, Less Crime", page 199):
"Safe storage rules also seem to cause some real problems. Passage of these laws is significantly related to almost 9 percent more rapes and robberies and 5.6 percent more burglaries. In terms of total crime in 1996, the presence of the law in just these fifteen states was associated with 3,600 more rapes, 22,500 more robberies, and 64,000 more burglaries."
Page 201 of the same book says "We find no support for the theory that safe storage laws reduce either juvenile accidental gun deaths or suicides. Instead, these storage requirements appear to impair people's ability to use guns defensively."
As more people are forced to get these "locking devices" the anti-gun politicians will take the next step: a law making you use them to lock up your guns or else you'll be a criminal. Then they can arrest you and confiscate your guns, which is what they wanted all along.
Later in the NRA-ILA alert they state :
"The Senate then debated and voted upon two amendments seeking to gut S.1805. The first related to the D.C. sniper case, but the proposal by Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.) was defeated, 56-40. A so-called "law enforcement" exemption offered by Sen. Jon Corzine (D-N.J.) was soundly defeated, 56 to 38.
NRA strongly opposed both amendments."
Why then, we must wonder, didn't the NRA oppose the horrible Kohl amendment? Is it because the two amendments "seeking to gut S.1805" were defeated and the Kohl amendment, which they don't even criticize, passed? Is this the strategy of the NRA, to claim, after the fact, opposition to bad amendments that fail, while giving tacit approval to bad amendments that pass?
Many of you have no doubt seen the internet traffic where some have accused the NRA of having cut a deal going into this bill. You may have also seen the strongly worded denials from NRA. But now we must say our concern is greater than ever. If there is no deal, as NRA has repeatedly stated, why the approval of Kohl's gun lock-up amendment? What are they willing to compromise next?
In the NRA alert described above, the NRA states :
> "NRA-ILA stands committed to enacting into law, a "clean" (without any
> anti-gun amendments) S. 1805. And, as we have from Day One, we will
> continue to vigorously oppose any anti-gun amendments to S. 1805,
> specifically, reauthorization of the 1994 Clinton gun ban in any way,
> shape, or form, and imposing restrictions on gun shows."
But the bill ALREADY HAS AN ANTI-GUN AMENDMENT AND THE NRA HAS NOT OPPOSED IT!!!
Already today (Monday, March 1) an amendment to reauthorize the so-called "Assault Weapons" ban was made (and will be voted upon on Tuesday). Colorado Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell voted for that inital ban. We also know that NRA endorsed- and- supported George Bush has promised he would sign a renewal of the semi-auto ban. Yet not one word has been written by NRA distancing themselves from Campbell and in same alert referenced above they state:
> Using the bully pulpit of the White House, President Bush offered the
> following statement highlighting his support for the lawsuit bill
> without
> any anti-gun amendments: "The Administration strongly supports Senate
> passage of S. 1805. The Administration urges the Senate to pass a clean
> bill, in order to ensure enactment of the legislation this year. Any
> amendment that would delay enactment of the bill beyond this year is
> unacceptable.
But Bush NEVER says he won't sign it. Why would a new semi-auto ban "delay enactment" if he's already promised to sign it?
As NRA muckety muck Neal Knox wrote, "Let me assure you: S.1805 WILL CONTAIN A LOT MORE GUN CONTROL."
Much has been made of the promise that this bill will be "fixed" when it goes back to a conference committee with the House. That is pure speculation and wishful thinking. We were made similar promises about other bills like "campaign finance reform" and now we face penalties if we dare discuss candidates in the months before an election!
Please call:
Senator Wayne Allard (202) 224-5941
Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell (202) 224-5852
Also please call the NRA -- tell them that S.1805 already has gun control attached to it (the Kohl Trigger Locks amendment) and urge them to kill S.1805 in the Senate.
NRA insiders are now privately whispering that NRA leadership is nervous, and the grumblings are that this bill is out of control and growing its own legs.
Call the NRA-ILA immediately toll-free at 800-392-8683 and/or e-mail them at Federal-Affairs@nrahq.org
Urge the NRA to pull the plug and kill S.1805 in the Senate, before it has any MORE gun control on it.
The standard (public) NRA response is that they're working hard to pass a clean bill. Tell the NRA that the bill is already dirty, and needs to be defeated NOW -- before it gets even worse."
"Rocky Mountain Gun Owners
Oppose Gun Control -- Kill S.1805
March 1, 2004, 1700 hrs Mountain - Please read the following communication and then call your US Senators.
Senator Wayne Allard can be reached at (202) 224-5941.
Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell can be reached at (202) 224-5852.
Also call the NRA -- tell them that S.1805 already has gun control attached to it (the Kohl Trigger Locks amendment), and, according to former NRA muckety muck Neal Knox, "Let me assure you: S. 1805 WILL CONTAIN A LOT MORE GUN CONTROL."
Call the NRA-ILA immediately toll-free at 800-392-8683 and/or e-mail them at Federal-Affairs@nrahq.org
Urge the NRA to pull the plug and kill S.1805 in the Senate, before it has any more gun control on it. Tell them to STOP approving anti-gun amendments like Kohl's gun lock-up law.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More and more it's looking like S.1805 is a turkey that can't be saved.
We are already facing the ridiculous reality that the "gun liability" bill, which was supposed to PROTECT dealers and manufacturers from baseless lawsuits, now has a brand new liability built into it; penalties if handguns are not provided with gun locks.
As you know, we have fought and defeated similar proposals that would require that you render your guns useless, here in Colorado.
Though we've defeated this kind of law in the Colorado legislature, we are having this irrational requirement shoved down our throats by the Feds. What's worse, it seems like the NRA has bought off on this crackpot scheme.
In an alert dated Feb 27 '04 the NRA describes the Kohl amendment which mandates this new intrusion into your rights this way:
"The Kohl amendment is much less restrictive and also provides liability protection for gun owners."
But that "protection" is only for people who lock up their guns and render them useless!
If you read the amendment, it only provides liability protection IF YOU LOCK UP YOUR GUNS. In other words, the NRA is buying into the argument of the gun-grabbers -- that locking up your gun makes you safer.
According to Professor John Lott (in "More Guns, Less Crime", page 199):
"Safe storage rules also seem to cause some real problems. Passage of these laws is significantly related to almost 9 percent more rapes and robberies and 5.6 percent more burglaries. In terms of total crime in 1996, the presence of the law in just these fifteen states was associated with 3,600 more rapes, 22,500 more robberies, and 64,000 more burglaries."
Page 201 of the same book says "We find no support for the theory that safe storage laws reduce either juvenile accidental gun deaths or suicides. Instead, these storage requirements appear to impair people's ability to use guns defensively."
As more people are forced to get these "locking devices" the anti-gun politicians will take the next step: a law making you use them to lock up your guns or else you'll be a criminal. Then they can arrest you and confiscate your guns, which is what they wanted all along.
Later in the NRA-ILA alert they state :
"The Senate then debated and voted upon two amendments seeking to gut S.1805. The first related to the D.C. sniper case, but the proposal by Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.) was defeated, 56-40. A so-called "law enforcement" exemption offered by Sen. Jon Corzine (D-N.J.) was soundly defeated, 56 to 38.
NRA strongly opposed both amendments."
Why then, we must wonder, didn't the NRA oppose the horrible Kohl amendment? Is it because the two amendments "seeking to gut S.1805" were defeated and the Kohl amendment, which they don't even criticize, passed? Is this the strategy of the NRA, to claim, after the fact, opposition to bad amendments that fail, while giving tacit approval to bad amendments that pass?
Many of you have no doubt seen the internet traffic where some have accused the NRA of having cut a deal going into this bill. You may have also seen the strongly worded denials from NRA. But now we must say our concern is greater than ever. If there is no deal, as NRA has repeatedly stated, why the approval of Kohl's gun lock-up amendment? What are they willing to compromise next?
In the NRA alert described above, the NRA states :
> "NRA-ILA stands committed to enacting into law, a "clean" (without any
> anti-gun amendments) S. 1805. And, as we have from Day One, we will
> continue to vigorously oppose any anti-gun amendments to S. 1805,
> specifically, reauthorization of the 1994 Clinton gun ban in any way,
> shape, or form, and imposing restrictions on gun shows."
But the bill ALREADY HAS AN ANTI-GUN AMENDMENT AND THE NRA HAS NOT OPPOSED IT!!!
Already today (Monday, March 1) an amendment to reauthorize the so-called "Assault Weapons" ban was made (and will be voted upon on Tuesday). Colorado Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell voted for that inital ban. We also know that NRA endorsed- and- supported George Bush has promised he would sign a renewal of the semi-auto ban. Yet not one word has been written by NRA distancing themselves from Campbell and in same alert referenced above they state:
> Using the bully pulpit of the White House, President Bush offered the
> following statement highlighting his support for the lawsuit bill
> without
> any anti-gun amendments: "The Administration strongly supports Senate
> passage of S. 1805. The Administration urges the Senate to pass a clean
> bill, in order to ensure enactment of the legislation this year. Any
> amendment that would delay enactment of the bill beyond this year is
> unacceptable.
But Bush NEVER says he won't sign it. Why would a new semi-auto ban "delay enactment" if he's already promised to sign it?
As NRA muckety muck Neal Knox wrote, "Let me assure you: S.1805 WILL CONTAIN A LOT MORE GUN CONTROL."
Much has been made of the promise that this bill will be "fixed" when it goes back to a conference committee with the House. That is pure speculation and wishful thinking. We were made similar promises about other bills like "campaign finance reform" and now we face penalties if we dare discuss candidates in the months before an election!
Please call:
Senator Wayne Allard (202) 224-5941
Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell (202) 224-5852
Also please call the NRA -- tell them that S.1805 already has gun control attached to it (the Kohl Trigger Locks amendment) and urge them to kill S.1805 in the Senate.
NRA insiders are now privately whispering that NRA leadership is nervous, and the grumblings are that this bill is out of control and growing its own legs.
Call the NRA-ILA immediately toll-free at 800-392-8683 and/or e-mail them at Federal-Affairs@nrahq.org
Urge the NRA to pull the plug and kill S.1805 in the Senate, before it has any MORE gun control on it.
The standard (public) NRA response is that they're working hard to pass a clean bill. Tell the NRA that the bill is already dirty, and needs to be defeated NOW -- before it gets even worse."
okay - nothing passed today but tomorrow is the big one.
The "assault weapons" ban renewal & the McCain-Reed gunshow bill will be voted on.
This is bad. If they would have been voted on today then there would have been enough time to get people to call their Senators & demand that they kill the bill. Now if the AWB or the gunshow amendment (or both) get tacked on then will have an hour or so (maybe less) to let our Senators know we don't want the bill to pass.
From what I read & saw (I caught the last hour or so of it on C-Span2) it was the same ol' same ol' - anti-gun Senators lying their asses off (& that was quite a feat considering the last time some of them saw a treadmill was in a bad dream) & urging other Senators to vote for the AWB & gunshow amendments. Kerry & Edwards will both make a special guets appearance in the Senate to add their votes for the AWB & any other anti-gun BS that gets voted on. & there was much talk urging Bush to stand by his campaign promise fo supporting the AWB & more urging of Cheney to be on hand in case there's a tie. (Yes - it's that close)
Craig would step up every now & then & call them liars without using the word "liar", correct some of their "facts", reiterate on the Right to Arms & then let them have at it again.
Folks, the anti's think it'll be a close vote. I think they're right, but whereas they're thinking they're one or two votes shy I'm thinking that a few will defect from our side & send them over the top. My own Sen. Campbell is a likely candidate for this & I must apologize in advance because if he does then it's my fault for not having a long chat with him when I moved into his state.
There's been a lot of talk about cleaning the bill up in the House or killing it in the House. That's like trying to rescue the hostage after the bad guys have got in the getaway car - sure it's possible but hell anything's possible. It's not probable & it damn sure ain't preferable.
There's also been talk that the Lawful Commerce in Firearms act is the "killer bill" that gun control folks won't vote for. That's incorrect. I don't know any anti-gunner alive who wouldn't trade protection for gun makers in the courts for a renewal of an actual gun ban &/or a prohibition concerning gun shows. Either one is much higher up in the deck than being able to sue the gun makers. & hell, they might have figured a way around its language that'll allow most of the lawsuits to proceed anyway. Judges have been misinterpreting the constitution for how long now? Think they'll all of a sudden become stand up guys because of a mere law?
So i'm not ready to urge it's killing just yet. I'm not happy about the gun lock thing but if we could slip in a pro-gun amendment - like a repeal of the Hughes Amendment to the FOPA of '84 - then I could live with it. But let me be clear: the second (& I mean the very second) that an AWB renewal or the gunshow amendment get added on then Cmapbell & Allard will get a phone call from me demanding that they vote against the entire bill. The AWB &/or the gun show amendment are too high a price to pay for legislative protection from erroneous tort actions.
Anyway, go read Geek & Uncle if you haven't already.
Also Alphecca has his weekly check on the bias up. I was shocked at the way they treated the gun stories this week, what with the Senate debates & all,
Countertop Chronicles has also been keeping up with the Senate - go give him a read.
Triggerfinger is another place y'all should check out.
& call your Senators if you haven't already. New or renewed gun control laws = withdrawal of votes & support for them & their party. No excuses!
The "assault weapons" ban renewal & the McCain-Reed gunshow bill will be voted on.
This is bad. If they would have been voted on today then there would have been enough time to get people to call their Senators & demand that they kill the bill. Now if the AWB or the gunshow amendment (or both) get tacked on then will have an hour or so (maybe less) to let our Senators know we don't want the bill to pass.
From what I read & saw (I caught the last hour or so of it on C-Span2) it was the same ol' same ol' - anti-gun Senators lying their asses off (& that was quite a feat considering the last time some of them saw a treadmill was in a bad dream) & urging other Senators to vote for the AWB & gunshow amendments. Kerry & Edwards will both make a special guets appearance in the Senate to add their votes for the AWB & any other anti-gun BS that gets voted on. & there was much talk urging Bush to stand by his campaign promise fo supporting the AWB & more urging of Cheney to be on hand in case there's a tie. (Yes - it's that close)
Craig would step up every now & then & call them liars without using the word "liar", correct some of their "facts", reiterate on the Right to Arms & then let them have at it again.
Folks, the anti's think it'll be a close vote. I think they're right, but whereas they're thinking they're one or two votes shy I'm thinking that a few will defect from our side & send them over the top. My own Sen. Campbell is a likely candidate for this & I must apologize in advance because if he does then it's my fault for not having a long chat with him when I moved into his state.
There's been a lot of talk about cleaning the bill up in the House or killing it in the House. That's like trying to rescue the hostage after the bad guys have got in the getaway car - sure it's possible but hell anything's possible. It's not probable & it damn sure ain't preferable.
There's also been talk that the Lawful Commerce in Firearms act is the "killer bill" that gun control folks won't vote for. That's incorrect. I don't know any anti-gunner alive who wouldn't trade protection for gun makers in the courts for a renewal of an actual gun ban &/or a prohibition concerning gun shows. Either one is much higher up in the deck than being able to sue the gun makers. & hell, they might have figured a way around its language that'll allow most of the lawsuits to proceed anyway. Judges have been misinterpreting the constitution for how long now? Think they'll all of a sudden become stand up guys because of a mere law?
So i'm not ready to urge it's killing just yet. I'm not happy about the gun lock thing but if we could slip in a pro-gun amendment - like a repeal of the Hughes Amendment to the FOPA of '84 - then I could live with it. But let me be clear: the second (& I mean the very second) that an AWB renewal or the gunshow amendment get added on then Cmapbell & Allard will get a phone call from me demanding that they vote against the entire bill. The AWB &/or the gun show amendment are too high a price to pay for legislative protection from erroneous tort actions.
Anyway, go read Geek & Uncle if you haven't already.
Also Alphecca has his weekly check on the bias up.
Countertop Chronicles has also been keeping up with the Senate - go give him a read.
Triggerfinger is another place y'all should check out.
& call your Senators if you haven't already. New or renewed gun control laws = withdrawal of votes & support for them & their party. No excuses!
As per usual I'll pass thing off to SayUncle & GeekWithA.45 until later this afternoon. Go check them out for coverage of the Senate today.
Sunday, February 29, 2004
It's not as cool as the TFP* kit, but at least they have the right idea.
Nicki Fellenzer writes about the plan hatched over at The High Road to mail gun locks (minus the keys & combinations of course) to Sen. Boxer.
Gotta love the internet.
* Tar, Feathers & Politicians kit - some assembly required.
Nicki Fellenzer writes about the plan hatched over at The High Road to mail gun locks (minus the keys & combinations of course) to Sen. Boxer.
Gotta love the internet.
* Tar, Feathers & Politicians kit - some assembly required.
In Colorado the heads of law enforcement in 7 respective cities have urged Sen. Campbell & Sen. Allard to vote for extending the "assault weapons" ban & to place federal restrictions on gun shows.
"In a recent letter, the chiefs of police in Louisville, Gunnison, Sheridan, Arvada, Colorado Springs and Denver, and the Boulder County sheriff urge Republican Sens. Ben Nighthorse Campbell and Wayne Allard to vote for the measures."
Bastards. Make sure to let them know how you feel about their disrespect for your Rights.
Now I could be mistaken but I thought I saw where Sen. Campbell was planning to propose a natiowide cops only CCW amendment. If so that would seem to indicate that law enforcement groups have some influence with Sen. Campbell which means it's very important to let him know how we feel.
Sen. Campbell is up for re-election this year. Call his office & let him know that if any gun control is passed into law that he not only lost your vote in his race, but your vote for his party. & don't neglect Sen. Allard; in fact don'
t neglect any of your Senators. They need all the guidance they can get.
Oh, lest I forget Amercians for Gun Safety is behind this particular push.
"Our nation's top law enforcement officers know better than anyone the importance of passing these bipartisan gun safety bills,' said Jon Cowan, president of Americans for Gun Safety, a group that says it supports gun-ownership for law-abiding citizens and tougher laws aimed at the use of guns in crimes.
'Keeping assault weapons out of the hands of criminals has helped to ensure that our nation's law enforcement officers are not outgunned on our streets,' he said. 'Likewise, closing the gun show loophole is one of the most important steps Congress can take to stop the illegal trafficking of firearms."
Bastards. (Yes - I'll be using that word a lot over the next few days) Lying bastards. (that phrase too) But let any doubts be removed from your mind that Americans for Gun Safety is anything other than a gun control group who tries to fool the unknowing.
"In a recent letter, the chiefs of police in Louisville, Gunnison, Sheridan, Arvada, Colorado Springs and Denver, and the Boulder County sheriff urge Republican Sens. Ben Nighthorse Campbell and Wayne Allard to vote for the measures."
Bastards. Make sure to let them know how you feel about their disrespect for your Rights.
Now I could be mistaken but I thought I saw where Sen. Campbell was planning to propose a natiowide cops only CCW amendment. If so that would seem to indicate that law enforcement groups have some influence with Sen. Campbell which means it's very important to let him know how we feel.
Sen. Campbell is up for re-election this year. Call his office & let him know that if any gun control is passed into law that he not only lost your vote in his race, but your vote for his party. & don't neglect Sen. Allard; in fact don'
t neglect any of your Senators. They need all the guidance they can get.
Oh, lest I forget Amercians for Gun Safety is behind this particular push.
"Our nation's top law enforcement officers know better than anyone the importance of passing these bipartisan gun safety bills,' said Jon Cowan, president of Americans for Gun Safety, a group that says it supports gun-ownership for law-abiding citizens and tougher laws aimed at the use of guns in crimes.
'Keeping assault weapons out of the hands of criminals has helped to ensure that our nation's law enforcement officers are not outgunned on our streets,' he said. 'Likewise, closing the gun show loophole is one of the most important steps Congress can take to stop the illegal trafficking of firearms."
Bastards. (Yes - I'll be using that word a lot over the next few days) Lying bastards. (that phrase too) But let any doubts be removed from your mind that Americans for Gun Safety is anything other than a gun control group who tries to fool the unknowing.
Here's a list of Senators that are up for re-election this year. Make sure they know that your support for them & their party depends on no gun control laws being passed.
Here's GOA's legislative Action page. Use it to find & contact your Senator.
Here's GOA's legislative Action page. Use it to find & contact your Senator.
Pejmanesque has a very relvant question that we all should ponder:
"What good is a Republican Senate on Second Amendment and gun use issues if it keeps falling for the peddled myths of the gun control movement?"
Now Pejman confuses the issue of "smart guns" & safety locks a bit, but I don't think so much that it invalidates any points being made.
It's my opinion that if the safety lock amendment gets passed into law then it will take us one step closer to a "msart gun" law on the national level. The idea is that once Congress extablishes the authority to regulate something it won't stop at the initial thing. So this year it might be safety locks required with the purchase of a handgun. Next year when the accidental death rate of children under 12 doesn't shrink considerably they'll extend it to long guns, then when that fails to produce results they'll have some precedent to justify their intent of requiring "smart gun" techinology in all new firearms.
Now the reason the accidental death rate won't be affected by any of these measures is that trigger locks are currently available relatively cheap in all gun stores. Any place you buy a firearm will have a gun lock that will work on it. But possessing a lock does not mean that it will be used. & a lot of times a lock isn't necessary.
The only thing that will reduce the accidental death rate in children (from the 80 or so a year it is now) is education. The Eddie Eagle program from the NRA is a good start, but the best solution is to have the parents teach their children (starting at a very young age - like 4 or 5) about the dangers of careless gun handling. For the kids under 14 or so make it clear that they're never to touch a firearm without an adult present, & most importantly have an adult preent every so often who will watch & instruct the child as he/she handls the weapon.
Most accidental shootings are simply the result of ignorance on the part of the kid as to how the firearm works. whether the kid just wants to examine the gun & inadvertently pulls the trigger or if the kid is playing with the gun & pulls the trigger the motivation is usually the same: curiousity.
Kids love seeing how machines work. They like learning how to operate a toll that seems complex & myusterious & this curiousity is increased dramatically when the kid is denied even supervised access to said tool.
think about it - most homes in America have an assortment of knives & other cutting implements. They're not locked up & the kid frequently knows exactly where they are. But the kid is not completely denied access to them & at some point the parent even teaches the kid how to use it & the dangers of its misuse.
If parents would take the same steps with firearms as they do with knives then we could probably cut the accidental death rate in half. But as long as "gun" is a dirty word & kids are forbidden from learning about them then simple curiousity combined with ignorance is going to result in accidental shootings.
Now I'm not a proponent of government schools. I feel it'd be in everyone's best interest if we privatized education across the board & let the market do its thing. But as long as we have government schools we should try to make them work to our benefit. One thing would be to have a class held once or twice a year with age appropriate curriculum dealing with the proper use, handling & storage of firearms. In elementery schools start off with the basic safety rules & by the time they get to the high school level have them take a clas similar to the state required CCW classes - including the range training & testing.
This would knock out two things at once: it would increase a child's knowledge about how to safely handle & be around firearms & it would negate the requirement for classes in order to get a CCW (& if we can elimate the class requirement as being redundant we're one step closer to getting people to understand that CCW permits are mainly a form of gun owner registration).
So if the Senators who voted for the safety lock requirement are serious about safety, then let them pass a law requirig firearms education in the public schools, & let them pass laws which make it easier for a responisble adult to take a kid shooting, & let the state legislators eliminate the class requirements for CCW permits.
But the fact is they won't. No matter how much they blather about safety & it being "for the children" their real goal is civilian disarmament. Don't believe me? bring up my suggestions th enext time someone supports mandatory locks with purchase or "safe storage" requirements. You'll find it's only "for the children" if it fits their other goals.
"What good is a Republican Senate on Second Amendment and gun use issues if it keeps falling for the peddled myths of the gun control movement?"
Now Pejman confuses the issue of "smart guns" & safety locks a bit, but I don't think so much that it invalidates any points being made.
It's my opinion that if the safety lock amendment gets passed into law then it will take us one step closer to a "msart gun" law on the national level. The idea is that once Congress extablishes the authority to regulate something it won't stop at the initial thing. So this year it might be safety locks required with the purchase of a handgun. Next year when the accidental death rate of children under 12 doesn't shrink considerably they'll extend it to long guns, then when that fails to produce results they'll have some precedent to justify their intent of requiring "smart gun" techinology in all new firearms.
Now the reason the accidental death rate won't be affected by any of these measures is that trigger locks are currently available relatively cheap in all gun stores. Any place you buy a firearm will have a gun lock that will work on it. But possessing a lock does not mean that it will be used. & a lot of times a lock isn't necessary.
The only thing that will reduce the accidental death rate in children (from the 80 or so a year it is now) is education. The Eddie Eagle program from the NRA is a good start, but the best solution is to have the parents teach their children (starting at a very young age - like 4 or 5) about the dangers of careless gun handling. For the kids under 14 or so make it clear that they're never to touch a firearm without an adult present, & most importantly have an adult preent every so often who will watch & instruct the child as he/she handls the weapon.
Most accidental shootings are simply the result of ignorance on the part of the kid as to how the firearm works. whether the kid just wants to examine the gun & inadvertently pulls the trigger or if the kid is playing with the gun & pulls the trigger the motivation is usually the same: curiousity.
Kids love seeing how machines work. They like learning how to operate a toll that seems complex & myusterious & this curiousity is increased dramatically when the kid is denied even supervised access to said tool.
think about it - most homes in America have an assortment of knives & other cutting implements. They're not locked up & the kid frequently knows exactly where they are. But the kid is not completely denied access to them & at some point the parent even teaches the kid how to use it & the dangers of its misuse.
If parents would take the same steps with firearms as they do with knives then we could probably cut the accidental death rate in half. But as long as "gun" is a dirty word & kids are forbidden from learning about them then simple curiousity combined with ignorance is going to result in accidental shootings.
Now I'm not a proponent of government schools. I feel it'd be in everyone's best interest if we privatized education across the board & let the market do its thing. But as long as we have government schools we should try to make them work to our benefit. One thing would be to have a class held once or twice a year with age appropriate curriculum dealing with the proper use, handling & storage of firearms. In elementery schools start off with the basic safety rules & by the time they get to the high school level have them take a clas similar to the state required CCW classes - including the range training & testing.
This would knock out two things at once: it would increase a child's knowledge about how to safely handle & be around firearms & it would negate the requirement for classes in order to get a CCW (& if we can elimate the class requirement as being redundant we're one step closer to getting people to understand that CCW permits are mainly a form of gun owner registration).
So if the Senators who voted for the safety lock requirement are serious about safety, then let them pass a law requirig firearms education in the public schools, & let them pass laws which make it easier for a responisble adult to take a kid shooting, & let the state legislators eliminate the class requirements for CCW permits.
But the fact is they won't. No matter how much they blather about safety & it being "for the children" their real goal is civilian disarmament. Don't believe me? bring up my suggestions th enext time someone supports mandatory locks with purchase or "safe storage" requirements. You'll find it's only "for the children" if it fits their other goals.
Here's RMGO's after action report on the no-permit required concealed carry bill in Colorado.
Here's the deal: The NRA had promised not to push any pro-gun legislation this year. Their justification was that pro-gun votes hurt Republicans in elections. Now, call me crazy, but I had for some reason always assumed that pro-gun voters made up a large part of the Republican base. In any event that's thelie explanation the NRA offered.
In steps RMGO, who gets Rep. Brophy (R-District 63) to sponsor a pro-gun bill that would eliminate the permit requirement for carrying concealed as long as you'd be qualified to get a permit. It leaves the permit system in place for those who want a permit to travel to other states that recognize Colorado's permits, but for in-state carry it's no longer required. This means you could carry immediately & much less expensively if you'd meet the other requirements. Here's the text of HB 1281.
The bill was sent to the Committee on State, Veterans & Military Affairs. It was made up of 7 Republicans & 4 Democrats, with Rep. Sinclair (R-District 16) chairing the committee.
Now here's where it gets interesting. Two members of the committee were absent. Rep. Fairbank (R-District 22) was out of the country & Rep. Mitchell (R-District 33) was ill. That left the committee with 5 Republicans & 4 Democrats.
Speaker of the House Spradley (R-District 60) appointed Rep. Briggs (R-District 29) to take Rep. Fairbank's place. Rep. Brigg's is considered by RMGO as a left leaning big government type Republican: in other words a RINO. Speaker of the House Spradley appointed him despite this. Her running for governor may have something to do with it. The RINO we have in office now would have approved of her actions & it?s possible she sees this in the same light he does: a way to appeal to the moderate & left leaning voters.
Rep. Sinclair had signed a pledge to support a no-permit required concealed carry law as well as telling the bill's sponsor Rep. Brophy that he would support it, but keep in mind he is term limited & cannot run for election again.
As for testimony on the bill, Arvada's Chief of Police Ron Sloan testified against it on behalf of the Chiefs of Police, the County Sheriffs of Colorado and the Denver Police Department. He even went so far as to quote Handgun Control Inc. The League of Women Voters testified against it, as did the Colorado Coalition Against Domestic Violence.
Rep. May (R-District 44) gave a spirited defense of the bill, as did a few unnamed pro-gun committee members. Dudley Brown of RMGO & some private citizens testified on behalf of the bill.
& what about the NRA &/or its state affiliate the CSSA?
Dave Gill, VP of the CSSA was contacted by Rep. Brophy & when asked about the CSSA's stance on the bill said he would support it next year, but not this year. This would seem to confirm the notion that the NRA did promise not to push any pro-gun bills this year.
Dudley Brown reports that Speaker of the House Spradley was seen talking to Rep. Sinclair minutes before the vote, leading him to believe that the outcome of the bill was fixed.
& how did the vote turn out? Rep. Sinclair, Rep. May, Rep. Schultheis (R-District 14), Rep. Lundberg (R-District 49), Rep. Cadmen (R-District 15) voted for the bill.
Rep. Briggs, Rep. Frangas (D-District 4), Rep. Ragsdale (D-District 35), Rep. Weddig (D-District 36), & Rep. Weismann (D-District 12) voted against the bill.
That left us with a tie vote. Now what is normally done in such a situation is the bill is held over for a week or two until the absent committee member(s) can return, but Rep. Frangas moved to indefinitely postpone the bill with Rep. Weddig seconding it. "Postpone indefinitely" is legislative language for killing the bill. Rep. Sinclair voted to "P.I." the bill & the motion to "P.I." was passed 6-4-1. Thus the bill to stop the infringement of the exercise of a Right was killed.
According to this story from the Denver Post, Rep. Brophy doesn't think it was simply a policy disagreement that killed his bill.
"Brophy said after the vote that he doesn't think the bill died on its merits. He said House leaders don't think the gun issue is good for Republicans, a position he disagrees with.
'Republicans shouldn't run from this issue,' Brophy said. Votes on loosening gun rules can energize the party's conservative base, he added."
More from the article:
"House Speaker Lola Spradley, R-Beulah, would not say whether she wanted the bill killed."
Odds are she thought openly opposing the bill would adversely affect her chance of getting moderate & left leaning support for her gubernatorial campaign, but openly supporting it would have eroded support from her conservative base.
"However, she did appoint Rep. Bob Briggs, R-Westminster, to fill a temporary committee vacancy Tuesday, and he cast the deciding vote that killed the bill. Had Spradley left the seat open, the bill would have survived the committee and been debated on the floor."
Which shows that even though she would not speak the words publicly, her actions clearly show where she stands on the matter of Rights.
"The bottom line was that the bill was not going to make it through the Senate - it's an extremely controversial bill, and it died in committee,' Spradley said."
Sounds familiar doesn't it? The outcome of the bill was already decided thus there was no point in opposing the outcome. I believe that's from page 17 of the NRAlies Excuses Manual, under the section entitled Why We Sold You Out Why We Opposed Or Didn't Support Pro-Gun Legislation.
"Committee Chairman William Sinclair, R-Colorado Springs, said he supported the bill and would have liked to see it pass.
'It's no question if it got out on the floor it would have been one (heck) of a fight because the Democrats would have lined up against it and some Republicans, but that's not what happened,' he said."
Nope. That's not what happened. & the reason why that's not what happened is because Rep. Sinclair bowed to political pressure & voted to "P.I." the bill. After all, he voted for it the first time around, thereby fulfilling his promise, so he obviously felt free to vote to kill it.
Rep. Rose (R-District 58) has pulled a bill he introduced that would have corrected some infringements of contract Rights in Colorado's gun show law. His reasoning was equally questionable:
"Why should I put all my fellow representatives on record on a very contentious vote in an election year when I don't have to - when I know the bill is going to die?' he asked."
I guess "because it's the right thing to do" wouldn't be a valid reason for taking risks according to Rep. Rose's philosophy.
Senate President John Andrews hedged on this year's gun bills.
'I feel as though we accomplished a great deal with our carry bill and pre-emption bill last year. I think the general mood of both the House and Senate is to digest both those bills,' he said."
What all this means is that the NRA has talked Colorado legislators into not pushing any pro-gun bills on the misguided belief that it will make the elections tougher. Here's RMGO's Billwatch page which shows the legislation, both alive & dead, in Colorado this year.
(Of note is that the bill to increase hunting & fishing licenseextortion fees has passed the house & is currently in a committee in the Senate.)
& from this story in the Rocky Mountain News we find out what Rep. Briggs thought son the matter were.
"...Republican leaders don't want legislators voting for controversial bills for fear that their voting records will be used by challengers in the November election.
'That concern was expressed to me,' said Rep. Bob Briggs, R-Westminster, who was a last-minute appointment to the House State Affairs Committee and voted against the bill"
I wonder in what manner that concern was expressed to him. & by whom?
Now according to this post by Billll at the High Road, we find an equally absurd line of justification for not supporting pro-gun bills;
"Bill, Be careful what you ask for. I think the passage of this bill will
only excite the anti-gun people who will then go to the ballot with an
imitative banning all forms of concealed carry. Just look at what they
accomplished with Amendment 22, remember they have the numbers. It will only take a bill like this to really get them energized. "
That was from Rep. Stengall (R-District 38). Rep. Stengall is also the sponsor of the bill that would increase hunting & fishing licenseextortion fees from between 50% to 100% (depending upon the specific license) that's already been passed in the House & is in a Senate committee.
Here's my take on things:
The Republicans either bought some BS from the NRA or convinced the NRA to go along with some BS they thought of on their own about pro-gun votes hurting Republican re-election efforts. In either case the NRA & CSSA decided to take a break from pretending to fight for your Rights. The Republicans did as well.
So when pro-gun bills crop up, they get sent to committees which will kill them w/o having to have the entire House vote one way or the other. Speaker of the House Spradley has ambitions for the governorship & obviously doing favors for her now is akin to career advancement in some legislators eyes. Rep. Briggs would be one of them, & I suspect that it caused him no grief to put a political favor above the Rights of the people who allegedly represents.
Now I agree that a vote on a gun bill could be bad for Republicans seeking re-election, but that would be a ?no? vote on a pro-gun bill or a "yes" vote on an anti-gun bill. Sad when a political party thinks a vote for freedom or against an infringement of a Right would hurt them politically isn't it?
So if you live in Colorado & won't subject yourself to groveling for permission & paying a fee to exercise a Right, thank Speaker of the House Spradley, Rep. Sinclair, Rep. Briggs, the NRA & the CSSA for ensuring you'll be arrested & charged if you?re caught.
In fact, here?s the contact info for all concerned.
Be sure to thank those who were
Pro-Rights
Rep. Brophy
Office Location: 200 E. Colfax, Room 271
Denver, CO 80203
Phone: (303)866-2906
E-Mail: greg@gregbrophy.net
Rep. Cadman
Office Location: 200 E. Colfax, Room 271
Denver, CO 80203
Phone: (303)866-5525
Email: bill.cadman.house@state.co.us
Rep. Lundberg
Office Location: 200 E. Colfax, Room 271
Denver, CO 80203
Phone: (303)866-2907
E-Mail: kevin@kevinlundberg.com
Rep. May
Office Location: 200 E. Colfax, Room 271
Denver, CO 80203
Phone: (303)866-2933
E-Mail: mike.may.house@state.co.us
Rep. Schultheis
Office Location: 200 E. Colfax, Room 271
Denver, CO 80203
Phone: (303)866-2937
E-Mail: dave.schultheis.house@state.co.us
& be sure to expres your disappointment in those that were
Anti-Rights
Rep. Briggs
Office Location: 200 E. Colfax, Room 271
Denver, CO 80203
Phone: (303)866-2950
E-Mail: bob.briggs.house@state.co.us
Rep. Frangas
Office Location: 200 E. Colfax, Room 271
Denver, CO 80203
Phone: (303)866-2954
E-Mail: kjerry.frangas.house@state.co.us
Rep. Ragsdale
Office Location: 200 E. Colfax, Room 271
Denver, CO 80203
Phone: (303)866-2843
E-Mail: ann.ragsdale.house@state.co.us
Rep. Sinclair
Office Location: 200 E. Colfax, Room 271
Denver, CO 80203
Phone: (303)866-2965
E-Mail: bill.sinclair.house@state.co.us
Speaker of the House Spradley
Office Location: 200 E. Colfax, Room 271
Denver, CO 80203
Phone: (303)866-2346
E-Mail: spradley@fone.net
Rep. Stengall
Office Location: 200 E. Colfax, Room 271
Denver, CO 80203
Phone: (303)866-2953
E-mail: joe.stengel.house@state.co.us
Rep. Weddig
Office Location: 200 E. Colfax, Room 271
Denver, CO 80203
Capitol Phone: (303)866-2942
E-Mail: frankweddig@coloradohouse.org
Rep. Weismann
Office Location: 200 E. Colfax, Room 271
Denver, CO 80203
Phone: (303)866-2920
E-Mail: reppaul@aol.com
In addition to the legislators, The Denver Post was opposed to the bill as they?re opposed to most pro-gun bills & supportive of most anti-gun bills. Here's the link to The Denver Posts contact page.
The CSSA declined to support the bill & seems to have been in league withLucifer the NRA in having it killed. Here?s the link to the CSSA's Directory page CSSA Vice President Dave Gill can be reached at vice_president@cssa.org
CSSA President can be reached at president@cssa.org.
CSSA Legislative Director Tim Brown can be reached at legislative@cssa.org
The NRA seems to have been a major force in getting pro-gun bills such as the Colorado Freedom to Carry Act killed. The contact info for their Field Rep. for Colorado is:
David Lee
P.O. Box 458
Fort Morgan, CO 80701-0458
970-867-1916 (office)
970-867-1917 (fax)
I urge you to withdraw any & all financial, emotional, spiritual &/or material support from the people & organizations listed until such time as they have proven they're not going to sell you out for their own agenda. If you have 1 day to go before your membership expires, call them up, cancel & explain why.
Rep. Sinclair is term limited, so threatening to not vote for him won't do much good. However there is always the traditional approach; ostracize him. Don?t engage in any social interaction with him, except to express your disappointment in his betrayal of Colorado?s people. Similarly don't do business with him. If he comes to you offering to purchase a service tell him you don't do business with people who betray you. If you need a service & find out he's selling, then tell him you don?t trader with people who betray you.
Speaker of the House Spradley is in a different position. She's running for governor. So in her case by all means inform her of why you won't vote for her, & why you're planning to ostracize her, but give her an out: if she'll apologize for her betrayal & make up for it (as in actively, if not downright viciously promoting & supporting pro-gun & pro-individual Rights legislation) then you'll not actively support her opponent & you'll consider doing business with her.
I?m not hip to the situation of the other anti-Rights legislators, but depending upon their situation I'd recommend applying either the first or second tactic. & yes, even to the Democrats. Traditionally the Democrats are an anti-gun party & odds are they don't count on many Republican votes, but it never hurts to try. Besides, the look on their face when you tell them to get the hell out of your store (or whatever equivalent is appropriate to your line of work) because they disrespected your Rights will be at least some consolation until the election comes around.
& spread the word to your friends & neighbors, especially about Speaker of the House Spradley. I know many who think she's the best choice for governor, but odds are their view would change if they knew she had part in the killing of a pro-gun bill.
& by all means, this November remember who was supportive of your Rights & who sold them out. Even if it means having a Democrat in office it's important to politically punish those who betray you. Until you & a bunch of others are willing to do that the Republicans will continue to be a party that is a little less anti-gun than the Democrats. Vote Libertarian, or Constitution Party, or any other political party whose candidate in that race promises to support your Rights. If you think it's wasting your vote then get off your ass & try to drum up support for the pro-gun candidate that the third party offers. But remember that the lesser of two evils is still evil, & if you let any party betray you once they'll damn skippy do it again.
Addendum:
The situation in the U.S. Senate concerning the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act makes what happened in Colorado seem a bit more odd than it initially did.
For those of you who haven't been paying attention to the U.S. Senate, last week a bill was introduced to provide immunity for firearms manufacturers & dealers from what are best described as frivolous lawsuits. The short version of it is if a manufacturer or dealer was criminally negligent or violated the law then they could still be sued for damages that resulted from their actions. If the manufacturer or dealer was not criminally negligent & they did not violate any laws then they could not be sued for damages resulting from the use of their products. In other words if you are hurt because a dealer was selling guns illegally & one of those guns was used by a criminal to harm you or if you suffer injury because the firearm blew up through no fault of your own you could still sue the manufacturer &/or dealer. If a person legally buys a gun & that gun is used by him or anyone else to harm you, then you couldn't sue the manufacturer or dealer.
Now the bill is a good idea & would be beneficial to the firearms manufacturers, dealers & those who purchase firearms. It would stop lawsuits that are intended to bankrupt the industry & wouldn't effect any suits with merit. But it is not so important as to justify an extension of the "assault weapons" ban or any other attachment to it that would further restrict our Right to Arms.
Anyway, the bill was introduced & there was strong bi-partisan support of it. They voted for cloture (which prevents a filibuster & limits debate & amendments) & it passed easily. However a deal was struck between the majority & minority that negated all the benefits of cloture & allowed many more amendments to be proposed & debated with a final vote on the bill as amended on Tuesday.
Now what strikes me as odd is that some Colorado Republicans have said that the gun control issue is to be avoided in an election year & it's alleged that the NRA either gave them or strongly agreed with that idea. Yet on the national level they're actively pushing a pro-gun bill despite any election risks.
Further it's been alleged that the NRA cut a deal so the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act could get a vote at the risk of having gun control measures attached. The details of the alleged deal itself aren't known but the two possibilities are that they agreed to have a lot of gun control measures proposed & voted on if the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act got a vote or that they agreed to let some gun control measures be added on in exchange for passing the bill. They deny this but they've cut deals in the past that have been harmful to gun owners & everything I've seen seems to back the conclusion that the most recent one was right here in Colorado.
So the NRA is pushing a pro-gun bill at the national level, but it's alledged they are behind the lack of support for pro-gun bills in Colorado.
Also they are alleged to have cut a deal on the national level which could be harmful to the pro-gun movement (which they deny) but evidence seems to suggest that they've cut just such a deal here in Colorado.
On the national level we'll have a better idea of what did & didn't happen after the vote on Tuesday. It's my belief that if any serious gun control is passed along with the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act that it will be a result of the NRA's efforts to get this bill passed. Whether their intent was good but negligent or malicious would be debated for some time.
Whether or not you agree with my assessment of the NRA that should not stop you from urging them (as well as your legislators on the federal & state levels) to do the right thing & not give in to the urge to compromise.
For further reading, analysis & updates as they happen on the U.S. Senate debates concerning the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act check back here & also visit GeekWithA.45 & SayUncle.
Here's the deal: The NRA had promised not to push any pro-gun legislation this year. Their justification was that pro-gun votes hurt Republicans in elections. Now, call me crazy, but I had for some reason always assumed that pro-gun voters made up a large part of the Republican base. In any event that's the
In steps RMGO, who gets Rep. Brophy (R-District 63) to sponsor a pro-gun bill that would eliminate the permit requirement for carrying concealed as long as you'd be qualified to get a permit. It leaves the permit system in place for those who want a permit to travel to other states that recognize Colorado's permits, but for in-state carry it's no longer required. This means you could carry immediately & much less expensively if you'd meet the other requirements. Here's the text of HB 1281.
The bill was sent to the Committee on State, Veterans & Military Affairs. It was made up of 7 Republicans & 4 Democrats, with Rep. Sinclair (R-District 16) chairing the committee.
Now here's where it gets interesting. Two members of the committee were absent. Rep. Fairbank (R-District 22) was out of the country & Rep. Mitchell (R-District 33) was ill. That left the committee with 5 Republicans & 4 Democrats.
Speaker of the House Spradley (R-District 60) appointed Rep. Briggs (R-District 29) to take Rep. Fairbank's place. Rep. Brigg's is considered by RMGO as a left leaning big government type Republican: in other words a RINO. Speaker of the House Spradley appointed him despite this. Her running for governor may have something to do with it. The RINO we have in office now would have approved of her actions & it?s possible she sees this in the same light he does: a way to appeal to the moderate & left leaning voters.
Rep. Sinclair had signed a pledge to support a no-permit required concealed carry law as well as telling the bill's sponsor Rep. Brophy that he would support it, but keep in mind he is term limited & cannot run for election again.
As for testimony on the bill, Arvada's Chief of Police Ron Sloan testified against it on behalf of the Chiefs of Police, the County Sheriffs of Colorado and the Denver Police Department. He even went so far as to quote Handgun Control Inc. The League of Women Voters testified against it, as did the Colorado Coalition Against Domestic Violence.
Rep. May (R-District 44) gave a spirited defense of the bill, as did a few unnamed pro-gun committee members. Dudley Brown of RMGO & some private citizens testified on behalf of the bill.
& what about the NRA &/or its state affiliate the CSSA?
Dave Gill, VP of the CSSA was contacted by Rep. Brophy & when asked about the CSSA's stance on the bill said he would support it next year, but not this year. This would seem to confirm the notion that the NRA did promise not to push any pro-gun bills this year.
Dudley Brown reports that Speaker of the House Spradley was seen talking to Rep. Sinclair minutes before the vote, leading him to believe that the outcome of the bill was fixed.
& how did the vote turn out? Rep. Sinclair, Rep. May, Rep. Schultheis (R-District 14), Rep. Lundberg (R-District 49), Rep. Cadmen (R-District 15) voted for the bill.
Rep. Briggs, Rep. Frangas (D-District 4), Rep. Ragsdale (D-District 35), Rep. Weddig (D-District 36), & Rep. Weismann (D-District 12) voted against the bill.
That left us with a tie vote. Now what is normally done in such a situation is the bill is held over for a week or two until the absent committee member(s) can return, but Rep. Frangas moved to indefinitely postpone the bill with Rep. Weddig seconding it. "Postpone indefinitely" is legislative language for killing the bill. Rep. Sinclair voted to "P.I." the bill & the motion to "P.I." was passed 6-4-1. Thus the bill to stop the infringement of the exercise of a Right was killed.
According to this story from the Denver Post, Rep. Brophy doesn't think it was simply a policy disagreement that killed his bill.
"Brophy said after the vote that he doesn't think the bill died on its merits. He said House leaders don't think the gun issue is good for Republicans, a position he disagrees with.
'Republicans shouldn't run from this issue,' Brophy said. Votes on loosening gun rules can energize the party's conservative base, he added."
More from the article:
"House Speaker Lola Spradley, R-Beulah, would not say whether she wanted the bill killed."
Odds are she thought openly opposing the bill would adversely affect her chance of getting moderate & left leaning support for her gubernatorial campaign, but openly supporting it would have eroded support from her conservative base.
"However, she did appoint Rep. Bob Briggs, R-Westminster, to fill a temporary committee vacancy Tuesday, and he cast the deciding vote that killed the bill. Had Spradley left the seat open, the bill would have survived the committee and been debated on the floor."
Which shows that even though she would not speak the words publicly, her actions clearly show where she stands on the matter of Rights.
"The bottom line was that the bill was not going to make it through the Senate - it's an extremely controversial bill, and it died in committee,' Spradley said."
Sounds familiar doesn't it? The outcome of the bill was already decided thus there was no point in opposing the outcome. I believe that's from page 17 of the NRA
"Committee Chairman William Sinclair, R-Colorado Springs, said he supported the bill and would have liked to see it pass.
'It's no question if it got out on the floor it would have been one (heck) of a fight because the Democrats would have lined up against it and some Republicans, but that's not what happened,' he said."
Nope. That's not what happened. & the reason why that's not what happened is because Rep. Sinclair bowed to political pressure & voted to "P.I." the bill. After all, he voted for it the first time around, thereby fulfilling his promise, so he obviously felt free to vote to kill it.
Rep. Rose (R-District 58) has pulled a bill he introduced that would have corrected some infringements of contract Rights in Colorado's gun show law. His reasoning was equally questionable:
"Why should I put all my fellow representatives on record on a very contentious vote in an election year when I don't have to - when I know the bill is going to die?' he asked."
I guess "because it's the right thing to do" wouldn't be a valid reason for taking risks according to Rep. Rose's philosophy.
Senate President John Andrews hedged on this year's gun bills.
'I feel as though we accomplished a great deal with our carry bill and pre-emption bill last year. I think the general mood of both the House and Senate is to digest both those bills,' he said."
What all this means is that the NRA has talked Colorado legislators into not pushing any pro-gun bills on the misguided belief that it will make the elections tougher. Here's RMGO's Billwatch page which shows the legislation, both alive & dead, in Colorado this year.
(Of note is that the bill to increase hunting & fishing license
& from this story in the Rocky Mountain News we find out what Rep. Briggs thought son the matter were.
"...Republican leaders don't want legislators voting for controversial bills for fear that their voting records will be used by challengers in the November election.
'That concern was expressed to me,' said Rep. Bob Briggs, R-Westminster, who was a last-minute appointment to the House State Affairs Committee and voted against the bill"
Now according to this post by Billll at the High Road, we find an equally absurd line of justification for not supporting pro-gun bills;
"Bill, Be careful what you ask for. I think the passage of this bill will
only excite the anti-gun people who will then go to the ballot with an
imitative banning all forms of concealed carry. Just look at what they
accomplished with Amendment 22, remember they have the numbers. It will only take a bill like this to really get them energized. "
That was from Rep. Stengall (R-District 38). Rep. Stengall is also the sponsor of the bill that would increase hunting & fishing license
Here's my take on things:
The Republicans either bought some BS from the NRA or convinced the NRA to go along with some BS they thought of on their own about pro-gun votes hurting Republican re-election efforts. In either case the NRA & CSSA decided to take a break from pretending to fight for your Rights. The Republicans did as well.
So when pro-gun bills crop up, they get sent to committees which will kill them w/o having to have the entire House vote one way or the other. Speaker of the House Spradley has ambitions for the governorship & obviously doing favors for her now is akin to career advancement in some legislators eyes. Rep. Briggs would be one of them, & I suspect that it caused him no grief to put a political favor above the Rights of the people who allegedly represents.
Now I agree that a vote on a gun bill could be bad for Republicans seeking re-election, but that would be a ?no? vote on a pro-gun bill or a "yes" vote on an anti-gun bill. Sad when a political party thinks a vote for freedom or against an infringement of a Right would hurt them politically isn't it?
So if you live in Colorado & won't subject yourself to groveling for permission & paying a fee to exercise a Right, thank Speaker of the House Spradley, Rep. Sinclair, Rep. Briggs, the NRA & the CSSA for ensuring you'll be arrested & charged if you?re caught.
In fact, here?s the contact info for all concerned.
Be sure to thank those who were
Pro-Rights
Rep. Brophy
Office Location: 200 E. Colfax, Room 271
Denver, CO 80203
Phone: (303)866-2906
E-Mail: greg@gregbrophy.net
Rep. Cadman
Office Location: 200 E. Colfax, Room 271
Denver, CO 80203
Phone: (303)866-5525
Email: bill.cadman.house@state.co.us
Rep. Lundberg
Office Location: 200 E. Colfax, Room 271
Denver, CO 80203
Phone: (303)866-2907
E-Mail: kevin@kevinlundberg.com
Rep. May
Office Location: 200 E. Colfax, Room 271
Denver, CO 80203
Phone: (303)866-2933
E-Mail: mike.may.house@state.co.us
Rep. Schultheis
Office Location: 200 E. Colfax, Room 271
Denver, CO 80203
Phone: (303)866-2937
E-Mail: dave.schultheis.house@state.co.us
& be sure to expres your disappointment in those that were
Anti-Rights
Rep. Briggs
Office Location: 200 E. Colfax, Room 271
Denver, CO 80203
Phone: (303)866-2950
E-Mail: bob.briggs.house@state.co.us
Rep. Frangas
Office Location: 200 E. Colfax, Room 271
Denver, CO 80203
Phone: (303)866-2954
E-Mail: kjerry.frangas.house@state.co.us
Rep. Ragsdale
Office Location: 200 E. Colfax, Room 271
Denver, CO 80203
Phone: (303)866-2843
E-Mail: ann.ragsdale.house@state.co.us
Rep. Sinclair
Office Location: 200 E. Colfax, Room 271
Denver, CO 80203
Phone: (303)866-2965
E-Mail: bill.sinclair.house@state.co.us
Speaker of the House Spradley
Office Location: 200 E. Colfax, Room 271
Denver, CO 80203
Phone: (303)866-2346
E-Mail: spradley@fone.net
Rep. Stengall
Office Location: 200 E. Colfax, Room 271
Denver, CO 80203
Phone: (303)866-2953
E-mail: joe.stengel.house@state.co.us
Rep. Weddig
Office Location: 200 E. Colfax, Room 271
Denver, CO 80203
Capitol Phone: (303)866-2942
E-Mail: frankweddig@coloradohouse.org
Rep. Weismann
Office Location: 200 E. Colfax, Room 271
Denver, CO 80203
Phone: (303)866-2920
E-Mail: reppaul@aol.com
In addition to the legislators, The Denver Post was opposed to the bill as they?re opposed to most pro-gun bills & supportive of most anti-gun bills. Here's the link to The Denver Posts contact page.
The CSSA declined to support the bill & seems to have been in league with
CSSA President can be reached at president@cssa.org.
CSSA Legislative Director Tim Brown can be reached at legislative@cssa.org
The NRA seems to have been a major force in getting pro-gun bills such as the Colorado Freedom to Carry Act killed. The contact info for their Field Rep. for Colorado is:
David Lee
P.O. Box 458
Fort Morgan, CO 80701-0458
970-867-1916 (office)
970-867-1917 (fax)
I urge you to withdraw any & all financial, emotional, spiritual &/or material support from the people & organizations listed until such time as they have proven they're not going to sell you out for their own agenda. If you have 1 day to go before your membership expires, call them up, cancel & explain why.
Rep. Sinclair is term limited, so threatening to not vote for him won't do much good. However there is always the traditional approach; ostracize him. Don?t engage in any social interaction with him, except to express your disappointment in his betrayal of Colorado?s people. Similarly don't do business with him. If he comes to you offering to purchase a service tell him you don't do business with people who betray you. If you need a service & find out he's selling, then tell him you don?t trader with people who betray you.
Speaker of the House Spradley is in a different position. She's running for governor. So in her case by all means inform her of why you won't vote for her, & why you're planning to ostracize her, but give her an out: if she'll apologize for her betrayal & make up for it (as in actively, if not downright viciously promoting & supporting pro-gun & pro-individual Rights legislation) then you'll not actively support her opponent & you'll consider doing business with her.
I?m not hip to the situation of the other anti-Rights legislators, but depending upon their situation I'd recommend applying either the first or second tactic. & yes, even to the Democrats. Traditionally the Democrats are an anti-gun party & odds are they don't count on many Republican votes, but it never hurts to try. Besides, the look on their face when you tell them to get the hell out of your store (or whatever equivalent is appropriate to your line of work) because they disrespected your Rights will be at least some consolation until the election comes around.
& spread the word to your friends & neighbors, especially about Speaker of the House Spradley. I know many who think she's the best choice for governor, but odds are their view would change if they knew she had part in the killing of a pro-gun bill.
& by all means, this November remember who was supportive of your Rights & who sold them out. Even if it means having a Democrat in office it's important to politically punish those who betray you. Until you & a bunch of others are willing to do that the Republicans will continue to be a party that is a little less anti-gun than the Democrats. Vote Libertarian, or Constitution Party, or any other political party whose candidate in that race promises to support your Rights. If you think it's wasting your vote then get off your ass & try to drum up support for the pro-gun candidate that the third party offers. But remember that the lesser of two evils is still evil, & if you let any party betray you once they'll damn skippy do it again.
Addendum:
The situation in the U.S. Senate concerning the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act makes what happened in Colorado seem a bit more odd than it initially did.
For those of you who haven't been paying attention to the U.S. Senate, last week a bill was introduced to provide immunity for firearms manufacturers & dealers from what are best described as frivolous lawsuits. The short version of it is if a manufacturer or dealer was criminally negligent or violated the law then they could still be sued for damages that resulted from their actions. If the manufacturer or dealer was not criminally negligent & they did not violate any laws then they could not be sued for damages resulting from the use of their products. In other words if you are hurt because a dealer was selling guns illegally & one of those guns was used by a criminal to harm you or if you suffer injury because the firearm blew up through no fault of your own you could still sue the manufacturer &/or dealer. If a person legally buys a gun & that gun is used by him or anyone else to harm you, then you couldn't sue the manufacturer or dealer.
Now the bill is a good idea & would be beneficial to the firearms manufacturers, dealers & those who purchase firearms. It would stop lawsuits that are intended to bankrupt the industry & wouldn't effect any suits with merit. But it is not so important as to justify an extension of the "assault weapons" ban or any other attachment to it that would further restrict our Right to Arms.
Anyway, the bill was introduced & there was strong bi-partisan support of it. They voted for cloture (which prevents a filibuster & limits debate & amendments) & it passed easily. However a deal was struck between the majority & minority that negated all the benefits of cloture & allowed many more amendments to be proposed & debated with a final vote on the bill as amended on Tuesday.
Now what strikes me as odd is that some Colorado Republicans have said that the gun control issue is to be avoided in an election year & it's alleged that the NRA either gave them or strongly agreed with that idea. Yet on the national level they're actively pushing a pro-gun bill despite any election risks.
Further it's been alleged that the NRA cut a deal so the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act could get a vote at the risk of having gun control measures attached. The details of the alleged deal itself aren't known but the two possibilities are that they agreed to have a lot of gun control measures proposed & voted on if the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act got a vote or that they agreed to let some gun control measures be added on in exchange for passing the bill. They deny this but they've cut deals in the past that have been harmful to gun owners & everything I've seen seems to back the conclusion that the most recent one was right here in Colorado.
So the NRA is pushing a pro-gun bill at the national level, but it's alledged they are behind the lack of support for pro-gun bills in Colorado.
Also they are alleged to have cut a deal on the national level which could be harmful to the pro-gun movement (which they deny) but evidence seems to suggest that they've cut just such a deal here in Colorado.
On the national level we'll have a better idea of what did & didn't happen after the vote on Tuesday. It's my belief that if any serious gun control is passed along with the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act that it will be a result of the NRA's efforts to get this bill passed. Whether their intent was good but negligent or malicious would be debated for some time.
Whether or not you agree with my assessment of the NRA that should not stop you from urging them (as well as your legislators on the federal & state levels) to do the right thing & not give in to the urge to compromise.
For further reading, analysis & updates as they happen on the U.S. Senate debates concerning the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act check back here & also visit GeekWithA.45 & SayUncle.
For those of you who haven't seen it, here's the NRA letter sent out in response to allegations that a deal was cut to get the Lawful Commerce in Arms act passed.
"February 26, 2004
Recent internet alerts from some 'pro-Second Amendment' groups have suggested that the National Rifle Association has either accepted a compromise that would include reenactment of the 1994 Clinton Gun ban and/or the McCain-Reed gun show restrictions, or will not actively fight against their passage in the Senate. Not only are these claims completely false and ridiculous but they are also extremely counterproductive to our legislative strategy and agenda. Gun control groups are spreading the same rumors in hopes of confusing pro-gun senators as to our position in hopes of gaining their support."
Actually it's not ridiculous considering their behavior over the last 70 years or so. & I think it's amusing that they use quotes when they describe the groups who published these allegations as pro-second amendment.
As to gun control groups using it to confuse our position to the Senators I simply don't agree. By getting people to call & tell their Senators that they want a clean Lawful Commerce in Arms Act without any gun control amendments this helps, not hinders the position the NRA claims to have. But there's a matter of distinction that I'll touch on in a bit.
Nevertheless it's good, for whatever reason, to see the NRA responding to the allegations & stating that they will fight against gun control amendments.
"The National Rifle Association led the fight in opposition to this ill-conceived ban in 1994, led the efforts to repeal the ban two years later, and is leading the fight to ensure the Clinton gun ban expires on time on September 13. From public speeches, articles in NRA publications, communications to lawmakers and the development of a website (www.ClintonGunBan.com), the National Rifle Association has been vocal and unambiguous about our position on this issue."
That's misleading. The NRA said it opposed the AWB but it did not act on that statement. They had the opportunity to get their Senators to initiate a filibuster, but they chose to not actively oppose the AWB so they could get it out of the way & get the Brady Bill (which they wrote a part of & supported) passed. They may have talked a good game, but when it came down to doing something they were more anxious to get the Brady Bill voted on than to actively oppose the AWB. So while technically they may have been vocal in opposing the AWB before & since I wouldn't say they led the fight when they put up little if any fight at all.
Further Rep. Dingell at the time of the vote for the AWB was an NRA director. He voted for the AWB. He resigned from the NRA position the following day, but a few years later the NRA gave Rep. Dingell an award for being a supporter of the 2nd amendment.
"It is our hope that supposed 'friends of the Second Amendment' will cease to provide ammunition to the enemy by disseminating this false information. Unfortunately, some of these groups seem intent on finding or creating any excuse to defeat S. 1805, perhaps because its passage has been a priority of the NRA for four years. The anti-gunners are seeking to undermine the Second Amendment and the legislative process by seeking to bankrupt firearms and ammunition manufacturers or get gun control restrictions through the courts through dozens of pending municipal lawsuits -- blaming the gun industry for the acts of criminals -- initiated by anti-gun big city mayors and greedy trial lawyers. A single judgment by a rogue judge or jury could wipe out the entire firearms industry making our gun rights worthless. Passage of S. 1805 is critical -- but not worth allowing legislation going to the President including either an extension of the Clinton gun ban or restrictions at gun shows. There will be no compromise. The only choice is a 'clean' bill or no bill."
Again they have the nerve to use quotes considering their track record.
Ammunition to the enemy? I still fail to see how encouraging your Senators & even the NRA to do the right thing is helping the enemy.
Now what is of an immediate concern is the emphasis they place on getting the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act passed. They make it sound as if the entire firearms industry will shut their doors permanently if one lawsuit is lost. Now depending on the size of the award it could most definitely hurt a company or several companies & the aftershocks would seriously damage the industry as far as civilian sales are concerned. & don't get me wrong - I don't want to see that happen. My concern is over the way they paint a very dramatic picture (which may or may not be an accurate assessment of things) but then turn around & say it's not worth an extension of the assault weapons ban with no elaboration on why.
In a practical sense I could actually understand an argument that the Lawful Commerce in Arms act would be more important than letting the AWB sunset. I wouldn't agree with it at all for a number of reasons but I could understand how some would think that it was more critical to keep the industry from going under than repealing a law that we've lived with for the last ten years or so. & of course if I was a gun company I could easily come to the conclusion that preventing baseless lawsuits is more important than being able to throw a bayonet lug on a barrel.
But to then turn around & say that it's not worth extending the AWB after the build up on the critical nature of preventing these lawsuits leaves me a little cold. It could just be that the NRA didn't feel they had to elaborate, or that the person writing this letter for them overlooked the explanation.
One thing I did get a kick out of was seeing the words "no compromise" in an NRA letter. Now that's funny.
"The legislative process in Congress is complex and far from perfect. Fortunately, Congress is a bicameral (two house) legislative body and both the House and Senate must agree on the same bill before enactment. While we are uncertain of the outcome of several pending anti-gun amendments in the Senate, the House is strongly pro-gun and it (or a conference committee) will not accept any anti-gun Senate-passed amendment as part of the final product to be sent to the President."
Now this is BS. In effect they seem to be saying that the ways in which laws are made are real tricky & implying that we can't or don't understand it & they?re asking us to blindly trust their judgment.
But the main thing is that they seem to be relying on the House to get rid of any gun control attachments & that is either foolish or intentionally deceptive. Hastert is no friend of gun owners & he, not Delay is the one who decides what gets voted on & what doesn't. Add to that the high number of "F" & "D? & "Not Rated" Representatives & we're looking at being shy of 13 or so votes to pass an AWB extension. & there's over 50 "C" rated Representatives to choose from. That's based on GOA's rating system as I have found them much more accurate than the NRA's system of grading congress critters.
What it seems the NRA is counting on is that they can clean up a bill in the House & that is just not the case. It's possible but not very likely considering the nature of the House & the rules that must be followed to clean up such a bill.
"Pro-gun grassroots activists who want to advance our cause should not be distracted by misinformation and disinformation by our 'friends.' Instead, gun owners and sportsmen must keep our focus on the real action and contact -- by calls, e-mails, and faxes -- their two U.S. Senators urging them to vote for S. 1805 and against any and all anti-gun 'poison pill' killer amendments including, but not limited to, the Clinton gun ban and gun shows. Use the 'Write Your Representatives' (www.capwiz.com/nra/home) tool at www.NRAILA.org to contact your Senators and call them at 202-224-3121. We appreciate your active support in our cause to defend the Second Amendment and freedom itself."
I can't speak for any of the major groups but I for one have never implied that I was a "friend" of the NRA. They've screwed me over too much to even feign friendship. Now if they repented & changed their evil ways I would be, but as it stands now they're the gun owners? equivalent of having France as an ally in a war.
But it was not "misinformation" or "disinformation"; it was an allegation.
Also I would have liked it if instead of referring to "poison pill" amendments they would have said gun control amendments. But seeing as how they didn't & how they did say that other gun control besides the AWB extension & the McCain gun show amendment wouldn't be acceptable I'm wondering exactly where they'll draw the line.
Also they should have stressed that calling as opposed to writing is the best & possibly only way to get a message to your Senators in time. Odds are by the time a Senator's staff gets around to reading your e-mail it'll be a week after the vote has happened. Much better to call as the message is delivered to the Senator's staff immediately.
Now about that fine distinction I mentioned earlier: the NRA implies that it will be counterproductive to call your Senator &/or the NRA & express your concerns on the alleged deal that was cut. The claim is that it will hurt their legislative strategy.
But how can you hurt a legislative strategy that opposes gun control attachments to a pro-gun bill by telling your Senators that you don't want any gun control attachments added on & you'd rather see the bill fail than be passed with such attachments?
So that leads me to believe that there is a distinction between what they say & what they want you to believe they say. That distinction is between actively fighting against gun control attachments & stopping gun control attachments.
The NRA carries a lot of influence in Congress & if it chose it could ask the Senators who introduced the bill to withdraw it. The Senators would more likely than not do as the NRA asked.
What I think the NRA is doing is it's planning on actively (& more important publicly) fighting against passage of most gun control amendments. Some gun control they find acceptable as will bear out by amendments offered by Craig & Frist over the next few days - but that's another discussion. However their plan is not to stop the gun control amendments in the Senate but to attempt to strip them off in the House.
So they're going to play a very risky game with amendments that if passed will violate the Constitution & your Rights. They imply that they will fight for it, but they never directly state how hard. Now you can chalk this up to a risky strategy or malicious intent or anything else, but for our purposes the motive doesn't matter right now. What matters is their actions & while I have no doubt that they will publicly & openly oppose any gun control amendments on the scale of continuing the AWB or shutting down gun shows across the nation, I doubt seriously if they will withdraw the underlying bill to keep gun control from passing.
The distinction is between trying & doing. They're saying they'll try but not saying that they'll do.
Now on the whole I'm glad the NRA has answered the allegations. I'm not inclined to trust them but them stating something publicly obviously means they're aware of our concerns for a change.
But the proof will be whether or not they withdraw the bill if any major gun control provisions are attached. I'm thinking they'll claim they can clean it up in the House, but I'd be happy to be proven wrong & see them withdraw the bill if it's amended with gun control provisions.
"February 26, 2004
Recent internet alerts from some 'pro-Second Amendment' groups have suggested that the National Rifle Association has either accepted a compromise that would include reenactment of the 1994 Clinton Gun ban and/or the McCain-Reed gun show restrictions, or will not actively fight against their passage in the Senate. Not only are these claims completely false and ridiculous but they are also extremely counterproductive to our legislative strategy and agenda. Gun control groups are spreading the same rumors in hopes of confusing pro-gun senators as to our position in hopes of gaining their support."
Actually it's not ridiculous considering their behavior over the last 70 years or so. & I think it's amusing that they use quotes when they describe the groups who published these allegations as pro-second amendment.
As to gun control groups using it to confuse our position to the Senators I simply don't agree. By getting people to call & tell their Senators that they want a clean Lawful Commerce in Arms Act without any gun control amendments this helps, not hinders the position the NRA claims to have. But there's a matter of distinction that I'll touch on in a bit.
Nevertheless it's good, for whatever reason, to see the NRA responding to the allegations & stating that they will fight against gun control amendments.
"The National Rifle Association led the fight in opposition to this ill-conceived ban in 1994, led the efforts to repeal the ban two years later, and is leading the fight to ensure the Clinton gun ban expires on time on September 13. From public speeches, articles in NRA publications, communications to lawmakers and the development of a website (www.ClintonGunBan.com), the National Rifle Association has been vocal and unambiguous about our position on this issue."
That's misleading. The NRA said it opposed the AWB but it did not act on that statement. They had the opportunity to get their Senators to initiate a filibuster, but they chose to not actively oppose the AWB so they could get it out of the way & get the Brady Bill (which they wrote a part of & supported) passed. They may have talked a good game, but when it came down to doing something they were more anxious to get the Brady Bill voted on than to actively oppose the AWB. So while technically they may have been vocal in opposing the AWB before & since I wouldn't say they led the fight when they put up little if any fight at all.
Further Rep. Dingell at the time of the vote for the AWB was an NRA director. He voted for the AWB. He resigned from the NRA position the following day, but a few years later the NRA gave Rep. Dingell an award for being a supporter of the 2nd amendment.
"It is our hope that supposed 'friends of the Second Amendment' will cease to provide ammunition to the enemy by disseminating this false information. Unfortunately, some of these groups seem intent on finding or creating any excuse to defeat S. 1805, perhaps because its passage has been a priority of the NRA for four years. The anti-gunners are seeking to undermine the Second Amendment and the legislative process by seeking to bankrupt firearms and ammunition manufacturers or get gun control restrictions through the courts through dozens of pending municipal lawsuits -- blaming the gun industry for the acts of criminals -- initiated by anti-gun big city mayors and greedy trial lawyers. A single judgment by a rogue judge or jury could wipe out the entire firearms industry making our gun rights worthless. Passage of S. 1805 is critical -- but not worth allowing legislation going to the President including either an extension of the Clinton gun ban or restrictions at gun shows. There will be no compromise. The only choice is a 'clean' bill or no bill."
Again they have the nerve to use quotes considering their track record.
Ammunition to the enemy? I still fail to see how encouraging your Senators & even the NRA to do the right thing is helping the enemy.
Now what is of an immediate concern is the emphasis they place on getting the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act passed. They make it sound as if the entire firearms industry will shut their doors permanently if one lawsuit is lost. Now depending on the size of the award it could most definitely hurt a company or several companies & the aftershocks would seriously damage the industry as far as civilian sales are concerned. & don't get me wrong - I don't want to see that happen. My concern is over the way they paint a very dramatic picture (which may or may not be an accurate assessment of things) but then turn around & say it's not worth an extension of the assault weapons ban with no elaboration on why.
In a practical sense I could actually understand an argument that the Lawful Commerce in Arms act would be more important than letting the AWB sunset. I wouldn't agree with it at all for a number of reasons but I could understand how some would think that it was more critical to keep the industry from going under than repealing a law that we've lived with for the last ten years or so. & of course if I was a gun company I could easily come to the conclusion that preventing baseless lawsuits is more important than being able to throw a bayonet lug on a barrel.
But to then turn around & say that it's not worth extending the AWB after the build up on the critical nature of preventing these lawsuits leaves me a little cold. It could just be that the NRA didn't feel they had to elaborate, or that the person writing this letter for them overlooked the explanation.
One thing I did get a kick out of was seeing the words "no compromise" in an NRA letter. Now that's funny.
"The legislative process in Congress is complex and far from perfect. Fortunately, Congress is a bicameral (two house) legislative body and both the House and Senate must agree on the same bill before enactment. While we are uncertain of the outcome of several pending anti-gun amendments in the Senate, the House is strongly pro-gun and it (or a conference committee) will not accept any anti-gun Senate-passed amendment as part of the final product to be sent to the President."
Now this is BS. In effect they seem to be saying that the ways in which laws are made are real tricky & implying that we can't or don't understand it & they?re asking us to blindly trust their judgment.
But the main thing is that they seem to be relying on the House to get rid of any gun control attachments & that is either foolish or intentionally deceptive. Hastert is no friend of gun owners & he, not Delay is the one who decides what gets voted on & what doesn't. Add to that the high number of "F" & "D? & "Not Rated" Representatives & we're looking at being shy of 13 or so votes to pass an AWB extension. & there's over 50 "C" rated Representatives to choose from. That's based on GOA's rating system as I have found them much more accurate than the NRA's system of grading congress critters.
What it seems the NRA is counting on is that they can clean up a bill in the House & that is just not the case. It's possible but not very likely considering the nature of the House & the rules that must be followed to clean up such a bill.
"Pro-gun grassroots activists who want to advance our cause should not be distracted by misinformation and disinformation by our 'friends.' Instead, gun owners and sportsmen must keep our focus on the real action and contact -- by calls, e-mails, and faxes -- their two U.S. Senators urging them to vote for S. 1805 and against any and all anti-gun 'poison pill' killer amendments including, but not limited to, the Clinton gun ban and gun shows. Use the 'Write Your Representatives' (www.capwiz.com/nra/home) tool at www.NRAILA.org to contact your Senators and call them at 202-224-3121. We appreciate your active support in our cause to defend the Second Amendment and freedom itself."
I can't speak for any of the major groups but I for one have never implied that I was a "friend" of the NRA. They've screwed me over too much to even feign friendship. Now if they repented & changed their evil ways I would be, but as it stands now they're the gun owners? equivalent of having France as an ally in a war.
But it was not "misinformation" or "disinformation"; it was an allegation.
Also I would have liked it if instead of referring to "poison pill" amendments they would have said gun control amendments. But seeing as how they didn't & how they did say that other gun control besides the AWB extension & the McCain gun show amendment wouldn't be acceptable I'm wondering exactly where they'll draw the line.
Also they should have stressed that calling as opposed to writing is the best & possibly only way to get a message to your Senators in time. Odds are by the time a Senator's staff gets around to reading your e-mail it'll be a week after the vote has happened. Much better to call as the message is delivered to the Senator's staff immediately.
Now about that fine distinction I mentioned earlier: the NRA implies that it will be counterproductive to call your Senator &/or the NRA & express your concerns on the alleged deal that was cut. The claim is that it will hurt their legislative strategy.
But how can you hurt a legislative strategy that opposes gun control attachments to a pro-gun bill by telling your Senators that you don't want any gun control attachments added on & you'd rather see the bill fail than be passed with such attachments?
So that leads me to believe that there is a distinction between what they say & what they want you to believe they say. That distinction is between actively fighting against gun control attachments & stopping gun control attachments.
The NRA carries a lot of influence in Congress & if it chose it could ask the Senators who introduced the bill to withdraw it. The Senators would more likely than not do as the NRA asked.
What I think the NRA is doing is it's planning on actively (& more important publicly) fighting against passage of most gun control amendments. Some gun control they find acceptable as will bear out by amendments offered by Craig & Frist over the next few days - but that's another discussion. However their plan is not to stop the gun control amendments in the Senate but to attempt to strip them off in the House.
So they're going to play a very risky game with amendments that if passed will violate the Constitution & your Rights. They imply that they will fight for it, but they never directly state how hard. Now you can chalk this up to a risky strategy or malicious intent or anything else, but for our purposes the motive doesn't matter right now. What matters is their actions & while I have no doubt that they will publicly & openly oppose any gun control amendments on the scale of continuing the AWB or shutting down gun shows across the nation, I doubt seriously if they will withdraw the underlying bill to keep gun control from passing.
The distinction is between trying & doing. They're saying they'll try but not saying that they'll do.
Now on the whole I'm glad the NRA has answered the allegations. I'm not inclined to trust them but them stating something publicly obviously means they're aware of our concerns for a change.
But the proof will be whether or not they withdraw the bill if any major gun control provisions are attached. I'm thinking they'll claim they can clean it up in the House, but I'd be happy to be proven wrong & see them withdraw the bill if it's amended with gun control provisions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)