The Audio Of The First Round Of 2015

I spent a little time listening to audio of a committee hearing on various gunowner bills in Colorado. Here's a post on what those bills were. 

Here's a link to archived audio of Colorado legislative committee hearings. I couldn't find one for the Senate judiciary committee hearing. On the left hand navigation bar under House Committees click the State Veterans and Military Affairs link and look for February 2nd 2015.  This will open a pop up where you can listen to the hearing if you have a little over 9 hours to spare. I just started listening and they seem to be alternating between pro and anti testimony.



HB15-1127 (to reduce liability for businesses that allowed concealed carry) was first up.

The first gunowner control supporter to testify was a sociologist ("...my background is sociology of religion and culture...") who urged folks to listen to the "experts" who have "studied criminology and the effects of guns on a community", and belittled the sponsor's use of Brietbart (comparing it to The Onion) to support some numbers for his bill (HB15-1127). She went on to highlight that most folks who supported pro-gunowner bills were not city folk and they lived in safer places and somehow that meant their opinions were less valid than those that lived in high crime areas (who couldn't attend because they all had day jobs). Of course she was only representing herself, not "...the many people that I know who asked me to come today, who include teachers, university professors, parents, people of color...officers who are talking about people with guns in the streets..." If I had the time and could edit out her testimony from the rest of the audio, it'd be worth an essay length fisk all by itself. She even threw down the race card by suggesting that most supporters of people owning guns were white, and ended by urging the legislators to listen to the social scientists.

Oh, from the testimony on the audio (around the 35 minute mark) the League of Women Voters opposes HB15-1127. Just so ya know.

A CCW holder (around the 42 minute mark) opposes this same bill, and went on at length about how there needs to be more training before allowing anyone to carry a gun.

Dave Kopel was there, just before the 45 minute mark. He does a fair job of deconstructing some of the sociologists remarks.

At the 50 minute mark they ran out of folks to testify against the bill, so decided to trudge on with only pro-gunowners talking. At just past the 1 hour and 25 minute mark they took a brief recess, having killed the first bill before them.

Hmm at the 1:45 mark, the sponsor of HB15-1050 complains that his bill was moved forward in this hearing while another bill of his was being heard in another committee hearing. The committee chairperson brushes it off as just one of those things.

They pick back up at the 1:45 mark to consider HB15-1050; the repeal of the universal background check law and fees. At 1:52:53 one Ron Sloan, head of the CBI testifies in opposition to repealing this law. He spouted off a bunch of numbers, which he did last year and got criticized for it. He then couldn't answer a question about whether this law made it illegal or not to hand a firearm to a courier in order to ship it for repairs. The person in charge of the state's efforts to enforce this background check law, could not say whether a specific circumstance was illegal or not. And they take money from my check every damn week to pay his salary!

Note: Sloan won't be the one trying to enforce this law against me.

At 2:05:57 John Jackson spoke on behalf of the Colorado Association of Chiefs of Police. He and they don't want the universal background check law repealed.   "Common sense", "public safety", "law abiding gun owner" yada yada yada. "...the inconvenience of additional background checks is both reasonable and worth it to the public to enhance public and officer police officer safety [sic]". He goes on to flub his way through some questions.

Note: Jackson (or his fellow chiefs) won't be the one to lay his hands on me to gain compliance with this law.

Further note: in case you missed the subtle inference, Yes; I'm calling Jackson and Sloan cowards, as they're mighty brave about sending other people to enforce unconstitutional, immoral mandates where resistance should not only be expected, but encouraged. Cowards.

At 2:17:43 Lydia Waligorski spoke on behalf of the Colorado Coalition Against Domestic Violence. They don't want the universal background check repealed. Apparently they misunderstand how the prohibited persons list and subsequent background checks can make it harder for people to prevent domestic violence. She merely spouted statistics and expressed her utmost belief that this law would make Colorado safer (though the numbers weren't there yet) if we just give it more time, and therefore it shouldn't be repealed.

"You're concerned about fees and a second amendment right? I and I imagine others like me in my similar situation are concerned about staying alive" That was spoken by a domestic violence survivor who started her testimony at just before the 2:40 minute mark. She seemed to think a restraining order and a background check would protect her from her abusive ex. She's been here 19 years, of which the universal background check has only been in effect for a little under 2. Oh and Salazar, who contended once that women don't know when they were being raped, did take the time to thank her for her testimony

At 2:44 they had run through all the proponents of repeal.

Next up was the daughter of a victim of the punks at Columbine, followed by Tom Mauser. Mauser was practically begging the committee to ask him questions. I'd have paid $20 American if someone would have asked him how he cleaned his shoes off after dancing in his sons blood for going on 15 years.

Jennifer Hope, of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America testified next, followed by a few people that were just there on their own (the husband of a teacher, a Yankee transplant, a state employee, a teacher/ex-park ranger, a domestic abuse survivor, a "...republican, hunter, gun owner, police officer, and unfortunately a victim of gun violence..." who implied that his nephew died in the Aurora movie theater shooting, a teacher/Colorado Ceasefire member, a woman who speaks with a bit of a Yankee accent, a woman whose parents were murdered by a relative that hunted, and an Arapaho high school PTO/Moms Demand Action member and nurse.

The League of Women Voters rep finished things up by testifying against repealing the universal background check law.

Having listened to the same old drivel, often spoken with the same old accents, I seriously want my money back.

Note that the folks who spoke for themselves all save one seem to be either state employees or their spouses or yankees or victims. People who are inclined to think the State should protect them in other words.

I sit corrected - a fellow came up at the last moment to speak in support of repealing the universal background check law. Dave Kopel spoke up just after the 3:38 mark.

I disagree with Kopel on many things. That being said I found it a bit sad that he correctly pointed out that 2 aspects of the Colorado universal background check law were harsher than California and Massachusetts universal background check laws. (In Cali you can loan a firearm for up to 30 days as opposed to 72 hoursd in Colorado, and in Massachusetts you contact the background check service directly instead of going through an FFL as you must here in Colorado.)

At the 4 hour mark they took a small break before coming back to vote it down, 6-5.

Next up was HB15-1009 (the magazine capacity ban), followed by HB15-1086 95 day reply from CBI for NFA applications)  and HB15-1049 (make my day law applying to businesses).

There were some decent speakers for the repeal bills and supportive of the other pro-gunowner measures. There were also some less than articulate pro-gunowner folks who spoke up. I will mention that while they lacked eloquence and may never be counted among the country's great orators, they took the time to show up and say something, and that counts far more than the most silver tongue speakers who weren't there.

The anti-gunowners varied in terms of speaking ability, but their arguments all seemed the same to me. Usually an appeal to emotions and either a misstatement of facts and figures or a straight up misunderstanding of how firearms and people function. 

The bills all failed as y'all know. I doubt if anything said could have swayed the committee into passing anything remotely pro-gunowner. But that's no excuse not to try, and the folks who did show up and speak for their Rights have my gratitude. If y'all have time give them a listen