Questions for Mark Brophy
by Ari Armstrong, June 5, 2004
[For more material about Mark Brophy's Libertarian nomination for the Colorado legislature, along with commentary about the Liberatrian Party of Colorado, please see Mark Brophy Updates.]
[June 9 update: while Brophy did not specifically reply to the following questions, he did address some of them in a new statement.]
June 5, 2004
Dear Mr. Brophy,
At the convention of the Libertarian Party of Colorado, held over the weekend of May 21-23, you were nominated as a Libertarian candidate for the Colorado Senate.
As you know, I've been critical of some of your stated positions on gun policy. However, it is possible for a person to reevaluate his or her positions, and reach new conclusions, over time. In the interests of determining whether you have reached new conclusions about gun policy, I request that you respond to the questions in this document. I will release this document on Wednesday, June 9, with or without your responses. If you respond by 10:00 on Wednesday morning, I will be happy to include your responses.
On the morning of June 4, I received from you via e-mail a new, written position about gun policy. However, later that day, you wrote, "It is not my final draft. I will be issuing a more complete statement in a week [or] two." Unfortunately, I am unable to predict whether your "final draft" will substantially resemble your "draft" of June 4. In addition, I believe the members of the Libertarian Party of Colorado, as well as your potential constituents, as well as gun owners in Colorado, deserve to know your positions about gun policy at the earliest possible date. Asking for your reply by the morning of June 9 -- four days from this writing -- is a reasonable request.
I thank you in advance for your consideration of these questions, and I sincerely hope to hear back from you. --Ari Armstrong
On a survey distributed by Rocky Mountain Gun Owners (RMGO), which you signed and dated March 25, 2004 (http://www.freecolorado.com/2004/04/mbrophy.html), you responded "No" to the following question: "3. In 2000, Tom Mauser and SAFE Colorado launched a ballot initiative do close the so-called 'gun show loophole.' In essence, this expanded the Colorado Brady Registration checks to private purchases at gun shows. Do you _oppose_ closing the 'gun show loophole'?"
What is your position about Brady checks for private sales at gun shows at this time? If you support Brady checks for private sales at gun shows, please respond with the sentence, "I support Brady checks for private sales at gun shows." If you oppose Brady checks for private sales at gun shows, please respond with the sentence, "I oppose Brady checks for private sales at gun shows." (This specificity allows no misunderstanding about the meaning of your answer.)
If you responded to Question One by opposing Brady checks for private sales at gun shows, please answer this follow-up question. Would you, if elected to the Colorado Legislature, sponsor a bill to repeal the Colorado law that imposes Brady checks for private sales at gun shows?
On April 18, you stated in an e-mail (http://www.freecolorado.com/2004/04/mbrophy.html), "If government needs time to check the criminal record of a gun buyer, I favor giving them a reasonable time period." Then, on May 11, you wrote (http://www.freecolorado.com/2004/05/lino.html), "I answered 'no' on question 3 [the question cited above] because I don't want criminals to have guns. If government needs a couple of days to check all 50 states, that's fine with me." At this time, do you support waiting periods for gun purchases, or do oppose waiting periods for gun purchases?
As is indicated by your comments cited above, you have expressed support for the national Brady check system on three occasions. On the RMGO survey, you indicated you "support the _repeal_ of computerized 'instant' Brady background check legislation," but this statement must be considered in the context of your other statements that support the Brady check system.
At this time, do you support the Brady check system, or do you advocate the repeal of background checks for gun purchases?
On the RMGO survey, you responded "No" to the following question: "2. In 2003 the Colorado legislature passed SB25, which was a limited preemption law. While it repeals a number of city and county firearms restrictions, it still allows cities to ban the open carrying of firearms on specific city property. Some cities are now using this loophole to create criminal safezones, where criminals are safe to prey upon the law-abiding citizens. Should state law _prohibit_ Colorado localities from placing limitations on the rights of citizens to purchase, possess, or carry firearms (including the open carrying of firearms) (called full preemption)?"
In your e-mail of May 11, you wrote, "I answered 'no' to question 2 because I believe government should have the right to prevent people from carrying firearms inside courthouses and police stations." However, state law CRS 18-12-214 states: "(4) A permit issued pursuant to this part 2 does not authorize a person to carry a concealed handgun into a public building at which: (a) Security personnel and electronic weapons screening devices are permanently in place at each entrance to the building; (b) Security personnel electronically screen each person who enters the building to determine whether the person is carrying a weapon of any kind; and (c) Security personnel require each person who is carrying a weapon of any kind to leave the weapon in possession of security personnel while the person is in the building."
In light of CRS 18-12-214, a state law, do you now support or oppose what the RMGO survey describes as "full preemption?"