Around Colorado: April 28, 2009

Hsieh on Health-Bureaucracy Push

Thomas Ferraro and Donna Smith of Reuters reported April 24, "Congressional Democrats are near a deal to ram through legislation overhauling the U.S. healthcare system," imposing so-called "universal" (read: politically controlled) health insurance.

Paul Hsieh of Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine writes, "Americans have already been burnt by the Congressional rush to pass the 'stimulus' bill -- which many legislators now acknowledge that they didn't even read before voting for it. Congress should not make the same mistake by rushing to pass 'universal health care' legislation."

Read the excellent letters by Hannah Krening and Diana Hsieh, which Paul reproduces.


Twenty Years for Burglary, Illegal Auto

Congratulations to the AP for getting this point right: "Unregistered fully automatic weapons, sometimes called machine guns, are illegal."

Unfortunately, various important questions remain unanswered. Jason Muchow, "a Loveland mail carrier faces charges of stealing his ex-girlfriend's mail and owning a fully automatic weapon... Authorities say they found a fully automatic AK-47 in Muchow's home after he was accused of breaking into his ex-girlfriend's home and killing her cat... He faces up to 20 years in prison and $500,000 in fines if convicted of all the federal charges."

Surely killing your ex's cat, however horrible and despicable, is not a federal crime. The only reason stealing mail is a federal crime is that the U.S. Government holds a politically-enforced monopoly on first-class mail. Both these things are properly state-level, not federal-level, crimes. If he is proved guilty, he surely deserves significant punishment for stealing, breaking into a house, and killing somebody's cat.

Does Muchow admit that he illegally purchased a full-auto rifle or illegally converted a semiautomatic rifle to full-auto? Or does he claim that his rifle became "fully automatic" only after it was "tested" by federal agents?

My position is that the federal registration requirements for full-autos, imposed through tax laws, should be repealed. That said, if you knowingly buy or convert an unregistered full-auto, you're an idiot. More importantly, Muchow should be punished for victimizing another person, if proved guilty, and that is the point that I think all parties can agree on.


Buck Hate Crimes

I was pleased when the murderer of transgendered Angie Zapata was convicted by a jury and sentenced to life in prison. The murderer deserved (at least) that.

But is the crime somehow more heinous because it was obviously motivated by bigotry? I mean, he bashed in an innocent person's skull with a fire extinguisher. Isn't that bare fact enough to send somebody to prison for life?

More to the point, if a criminal bashes in somebody's skull for some other motive, is the crime somehow less abhorrent? Is the victim less deserving of tough sentencing?

"Ikonoclst" over at the People's Press Collective blasts Ken Buck, a Republican candidate for U.S. Senate, for praising hate-crime legislation.

However, Republican arguments against hate-crime legislation would go over better if some Republicans were not so shrilly anti-homosexual.


Arveschoug-Bird Safe for Now?

Last month I reviewed some of the details of the Arveschoug-Bird law, which limits general fund expenditures.

According to the Denver Post's Tim Hoover, the Republicans played a clever political hand to derail the effort to remove the law.

House Minority Leader Mike May, R-Parker told Hoover, "It is extremely disingenuous for the Democrats to remove this spending cap under the guise of creating transportation funding. We proved today just how easy it is to siphon those so-called transportation dollars right out of the bill and put them wherever you want."

'We Have a Co-Responsibility'

Attorney General Eric Holder said that the United States should reinstitute the Clinton-era "assault weapons" ban on the sale of arbitrarily selected semiautomatic guns in order (at least in fantasy land) to reduce the violence of Mexican drug gangs.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton added, "I feel very strongly we have a co-responsibility. Our insatiable demand for illegal drugs fuels the drug trade. Our inability to prevent weapons from being illegally smuggled across the border to arm these criminals causes the deaths of police officers, soldiers and civilians."

Clinton is right about one thing: the United States does "have a co-responsibility" for drug-related Mexican violence. The United States wages a war on drugs at home and abroad while encouraging the Mexican government to follow suit, a policy primarily responsible for drug-related violence.

We know perfectly well how to end drug-trade-related violence both in Mexico and in the United States. End the war on drugs. But few politicians have the courage or integrity to state this simple fact, at least in public.

This is yet another example of how drug prohibition promotes gun prohibition, a topic I discussed in 2000 (though I no longer endorse the Libertarians).

Gun-rights advocates who endorse drug prohibition act as destroyers of their own cause.

Concealed Carry for County Employees?

The following article originally was published on March 16, 2009, by Grand Junction's Free Press.

Rowland suggests county employees carry concealed handguns

by Linn and Ari Armstrong

Recently County Commissioner Janet Rowland suggested that county employees might carry concealed handguns to improve security at the old county courthouse.

Our friends at the Daily Sentinel said in a March 2 editorial that her "shoot-from-the-hip solution" "deserves to be shot down." We retort that the editorial is way off target.

We're still not sure Rowland has forgiven us for our 2006 column razzing her for wondering if gay marriage might open the door to allowing "a man to marry a sheep." However, we point out, if sheep could handle defensive weapons, the wolves might not be so eager to attack.

The Sentinel doubts that concealed guns would have helped in a recent event: "An angry county resident confronted a clerk in the county administration area of the old courthouse and made the clerk feel threatened. If the clerk had a concealed-carry permit, would... she have drawn her weapon and commanded, 'On the floor, dirtbag. You're out of line!' to the angry resident?"

Obviously the Sentinel's editorial writers need a first-time or refresher course on defensive firearms. One draws a concealed gun only when in mortal danger. A county employee who behaved as the Sentinel suggests would be fired (or worse).

Your elder author, an employer for many years, learned quickly that employees bring their backgrounds to work with them. Those trained in defensive firearm use are not only better shots, they are better able to handle all sorts of emergency situations appropriately, almost always without involving a gun.

Somebody who mortally threatens another usually believes he can overpower his victim. What concealed carry does is give the victim a chance to be something other than a defenseless sheep.

Nearly forty percent of the students in firearms classes in the Grand Valley are women. Many are single moms, many are divorced, many travel alone on the highways, many have husbands who must leave town for work. The women taking firearms classes have their own reasons.

According to Pinkerton surveys of corporate security professionals, homicide is a leading cause of workplace deaths, particularly for women. In most cases women murdered at work are victims of someone other than current or former romantic partners. Even more women are beaten, raped, or assaulted on the job.

Outside of work, some women are threatened or stalked by former boyfriends or spouses. People who carry a concealed gun to and from work do so for their own safety and protection. Once at work, locking the firearm in the car may not be the best way to safely secure or store the firearm. For somebody facing a real and known threat, what does the potential victim do walking to and from their vehicle?

We seem to have forgotten that a few dollars' worth of box cutters killed over three thousand Americans. The next time you are at work, sitting at your desk, think of the items within arm's reach that could be used as weapons. Pens and pencils. Large paper weights and other blunt objects. Sharp edges and corners. Broken glass. Fists. No metal detector is going to stop all "weapons" from coming into any workplace.

No, we're not trying to promote paranoia. Most of us will never be brutally attacked. Yet we buy life insurance even when we don't expect to keel over. Most of us do not think twice about putting our seat belt on when we enter our automobiles. We just feel safer with the safety belt on, though none of us plans on getting into an auto accident. Many who carry concealed handguns feel the same way.

Picture yourself on the floor with some guy's hands around your throat, choking the life out of you. We imagine the most comforting words you could possibly hear at that moment might come from the petite grandmother who has shared your office for the last ten years, as she draws her concealed gun and commands the attacker, "On the floor, dirtbag. You're out of line!"

All businesses, not just the county court house, should be concerned about security. Even the Sentinel has taken a closer look at the matter, as is obvious if you approach the business's front desk.

Unfortunately, many employers think first of purchasing stuff rather than training employees. Most businesses can't install metal detectors, and we're not sure they'd do much good even at the court house.

Some Colorado State agencies spend the time and money to train their employees in defensive firearms use. Your elder author has worked with Alon Stivi of Direct Measures to provide some of that training. Stivi points out that the goal is two-fold: to reduce the chances of becoming involved in a dangerous situation, and "to respond to violence or security threats without putting yourself at even greater risk."

Rowland may not know much about sheep, but at least she's thinking seriously about how to prevent government employees from falling prey to the wolves.

'I Haven't Read Any Statute' on Gun Shows, Buy-Back Organizer Says

The New Covenant Christian Church intends to host a gun buy-back on December 27. Volunteers with the effort also collected ten guns at or near City Park on December 6, for which they paid a total of $500, according to Pastor Reginald Holmes of New Covenant.

According to Colorado law, the event on December 6 as well as the scheduled event on December 27 qualify as gun shows, yet organizers made no indication that they followed the gun-show law on December 6 or intend to do so at the later event. Holmes said, "This is not a gun show," but he admitted, "No, I haven't read any statute" on the matter." He said he would evaluate the text of the statute and get back with me.

As I've reviewed, the statutes are clear on the matter. Statute 12-26.1-106 states a gun show is in operation when "not less than three gun show vendors exhibit, sell, offer for sale, transfer, or exchange firearms." A "vendor" is defined as "any person who exhibits, sells, offers for sale, transfers, or exchanges, any firearm at a gun show." The statute lists no exception for later turning in the guns to the police.

The statutes further define three main requirements for gun shows. First, anyone accepting guns must undergo a background check. Second, a licensed gun dealer must be on hand to record each transaction. Third, organizers must post notice of the gun show and its background-check requirements.

Holmes talked about his goals and criticized my interpretation of the statute.

Holmes said the problem for the December 27 event is "getting enough sponsors... We've used our money up to this point, and haven't got much support from the community."

Holmes said of the December 6 event, "We had over 40 people to show up to turn guns in... We had $500 on hand, we took in ten guns," and turned them into Denver's "Manager of Safety, as well as other Denver police officers."

Holmes said that, on December 27, "there will be police officers on hand." Will the organizers pay them? "No, we're not paying them." Holmes said police "probably won't be there for the whole thing," only "for the collection" of the guns.

However, Detective Sonny Jackson said "we're not involved in that" as far as he's aware, though organizers might have spoken with a police official without his knowledge.

I should have asked Holmes who specifically he or his fellow organizers contacted on the Denver police force regarding the December 27 event, because I've now talked to two detectives who know of no police involvement with it. I asked Jackson to get back with me if he learns more information about this.

Jackson did point out that any gun turned in will be investigated. The "only agreement [with event organizers] is that we would take custody of the guns, then have them investigated and destroyed." He added that the guns would be investigated to "see if they've been used in any crime that we're looking at... basically any gun we get we investigate the weapon to see if it's been used in a crime."

I asked Jackson whether the policy of investigating the guns conflicts with the "no questions" policy of the buy-back. He said he's unsure of the exact promises made by the event's organizers, but police policy is to investigate the guns.

Because those turning in the guns are not directly investigated, there may not be any direct link between the gun and the person turning it it. However, I imagine that if the police found the gun to have been used in some crime, they would try to track it back to a purchase from a licensed dealer.

Jackson said, "I have no idea whether it's considered a gun show or not." He said he'd have to refer the question to an attorney. He asked me if I'd solicited the advice of an attorney, and I said that I was going by the plain language of the statute.

Holmes continued to describe the December 6 event: "We paid the persons for the gun. When they turned them in, they were paid $50 on the spot. People didn't get the message that the buy-back had been canceled. People showed up with a real eagerness to turn their guns in. We turned away at least 40 to 50 people, and many of them had multiple guns."

I asked Holmes if, on December 27, volunteers will take the guns, pay for them, then turn them over to police. He said, "That's the way we're hoping it will work."

Holmes said his event is not an attack on legal gun ownership: "This is a hot-button political issue. This issue is being very much misunderstood by certain members of the press, usually those from the right, those who are NRA flag wavers, who think we're attacking 2nd Amendment rights, but that's absolutely ridiculous... We're talking about getting rid of illegal weapons. We don't believe people should own guns illegally. We want all these illegal guns off the street."

I asked him what he considers to be an illegal gun. He offered this example: "If your gun is to be registered, and it is not registered." However, Coloradans don't have to register guns, though they do have to register to carry a gun concealed. (Federal law requires the registration of certain guns, such as fully-automatic ones, but I doubt that anybody will turn in a full-auto at the buy-back.)

He also said was was talking about cases in which "you have obtained it illegally." Presumably this includes things like theft and straw purchases.

I asked him whether the organizers made any effort to learn whether the ten guns collected were obtained illegally. Holmes said, "We didn't ask."

Holmes said, "We don't want people to come to this country illegally, we don't want them to drive illegally, and we don't want them to own guns illegally... Illegal guns is a problem we have nationwide. In the inner-city, we have a major problem."

On December 6, "We got 9 millimeters, we got revolvers, we got sem-automatic weapons, we got shotguns, we got all kinds of guns that people were willing to turn in."

I noted that those guns are legal to own. Holmes replied, "Sure it is. It's perfectly legal to own it, if you own it legally."

I then asked Holmes about the gun-show statutes. Is the buy-back a gun show? Holmes answered, "No. We're not doing a gun show, because they sell guns at gun shows. We're not selling guns. This is not a gun show."

I pointed out that the statute does not restrict a gun show to organizers selling guns. What about the "three gun show vendors" clause? "There are no vendors, they're citizens." Yet I pointed out that the people turning in the guns are "vendors" under Colorado law.

Holmes pointed out, "The guns do not remain in our possession, these guns are going straight to the police department. You know of any gun show that does that, you gotta let me know."

I answered that the statute makes no exception for later turning in guns to the police.

"That's your interpetation," Holmes said. He asked, "Are you an attorney?" I said I wasn't, but the language of the statute on this point is clear. It was at this point that he admitted he hasn't read the relevant statutes, though he said if I sent him a copy he'd review them.

Holmes suggested that I was not practicing journalism; I said that I'm an opinion writer, and that the applicability of the gun-show law is interesting.

Holmes said, "If you have an agenda, we need to terminate this conversation. You crossed the line, son... into interpreting the law. You're not going to waste my precious air [cell phone] time arguing about whether this is a gun show."

I risked pushing the line of questioning a bit further, and asked him whether his group intends to follow the gun-show statutes on December 27. He answered, "You are not an attorney, so to pose that kind of question, I would not even dignify that with an answer."

Did he vote for the gun-show law -- Amendment 22 -- in 2000? He said he's not sure, as it wasn't a large issue for him.

As I am an opinion writer, I feel free to close with a personal note. Holmes seemed to take my questions about the gun show law as a personal attack, and Mike McPhee from the Denver Post also thought my questions constituted a failure to "support" the buy-back (speaking of an agenda). But, as I explained in my answer to McPhee, my interest in the buy-back itself is peripheral.

My personal attitude is that, if the buy-back encourages a few criminals to turn in their guns and find a life of peace, that's wonderful. I imagine the surrounding attention in the community about crime will have a much greater impact than the buy-back itself. I also suspect that most or all of the guns turned in will be clunkers never used in any crime and not obtained illegally. I think the organizers ought to simply encourage criminals to turn in their weapons to the police without payment, and that the funds probably could find better uses, such as a scholarship fund.

However, if Holmes wants to buy guns and turn them into the police, that's his business, so far as I'm concerned. I opposed the gun-show law in 2000 and continue to oppose it. Nevertheless, the law clearly applies to the buy-back. I will not be surprised if somebody contorts the language to claim otherwise. Whether the law is uniformly enforced as written, or enforced only on those who don't enjoy police favoritism, strikes me as a fairly big deal. The fact that the law is absurdly broad is something I pointed out back in 2000.

Denver Post Reporter Omits Gun Show Rules for Buy Back

As I've pointed out, a proposed gun buy-back project in Denver falls under Colorado's gun-show laws, passed in 2000 as Amendment 22. Statutes declare that a gun show exists when "not less than three gun show vendors exhibit, sell, offer for sale, transfer, or exchange firearms," and a "vendor" is "any person who exhibits, sells, offers for sale, transfers, or exchanges, any firearm..." So the gun buy back is a gun show under Colorado law.

This is a fact that the Denver Post's Mike McPhee does not think his readers ought to know. After McPhee co-wrote a December 6 story about how the buy-back was delayed over a permit snafu at City Park -- it turns out that park rules prohibit firearms -- I asked McPhee about the gun-show angle.

I wrote, "You still haven't reported whether the gun buy-back's organizers plan to follow the gun-show laws; the group is clearly a gun show under Colorado law."

McPhee replied, "adn why are you so worried if they fall under the gun-show laws? you don't support this buy-back? why not?"

But the issue is not whether I support the buy-back, but whether the law will be enforced uniformly, or only on those disliked by the establishment. The premise that police should enforce the law selectively, according to a political agenda, is quite dangerous. So I wrote back, "I'm not 'worried' about it; I'm just wondering if the law will be uniformly enforced. Why are you so resistant to reporting the relevant facts?"

McPhee replied:

I'm not resistant at all, and don't know why you think I should report it, or why you even care if I report it.
The cops know about this, the city knows about it, everyone knows about it.
If the guns are turned over to the cops, who will be near by, what is your concern?
Finally someone is doing something good, and you're all worried if he's got a license or something.
Go buy back some guns with him, or give him a donation. i'll report that.

In other words, McPhee admits that he's not interested in reporting the facts about the gun-show law because of his personal agenda.

I am happy to take this opportunity to answer McPhee.

First, insofar as the buy-back encourages gangsters and other criminals to hand over their guns and give up their lives of violence, it is a worthy project. However, offering $50 for guns is only going to encourage people with broken or crappy guns worth less than $50 to turn in their guns for a profit. Active criminals are unlikely to turn their guns in, especially given the event is, as McPhee points out, closely linked with the police. To me, a better program simply would have been to encourage criminals to destroy their weapons and stop committing crimes. Another problem with the buy-back is that it was not limited in outreach to criminals; various promoters said they wanted peaceable people to turn their guns in, too. But that has nothing to do with stopping crime. (A firearms training program for responsible citizens would do a lot more to deter crime.)

But the central issue is not about whether the gun buy-back is a good idea. It is about the unintended consequences of unjust laws, and whether those laws will be selectively enforced according to the political agendas of the establishment.

I opposed Amendment 22. Back in 2000, I warned that the definition of a gun show was arbitrary and would "only serve to harass peaceable gun owners." I didn't anticipate that the law also would apply to gun buy-backs.

No, I do not think that the organizers of the buy-back -- legally the gun show -- should be subject to those restrictions. I don't believe those restrictions should exist in law. However, I also see an enormous problem if police enforce the gun show laws only for organizations they don't like, and wink at the law when it suits their political agenda.

Now, I do not know whether the event's organizers are aware of the applicability of the gun-show law to their proposed event. I have not yet been able to find contact information for Alvertis Simmons, and I've left a message for Pastor Reginald Holmes of New Covenant Christian Church, where the rescheduled buy-back is planned. Perhaps the event's organizers are aware of the law and plan to follow it. This is a question that reporters should answer, and that I will answer as soon as I can get ahold of the relevant parties.

I've also asked a spokesperson with the Denver Police Department whether officers will attend the event, whether they will be on duty, and whether they will ensure enforcement of the gun show statutes. I will post those answers as soon as I receive them. [Update: Denver Police Detective Sharon Avendano called me back at around 12:45 p.m. She said, "We have not been notified or advised of this at this time," even though the police "were [notified] on the last one they had," the one scheduled for December 6 that was cancelled. It's unclear to me, then, why McPhee believes the police "will be near," when the police apparently had not been contacted about the rescheduled event.]

To review, Colorado law imposes three main requirements on gun shows: the organizers must post a notice regarding the gun show, they must have a licensed firearms dealer on hand to record each transaction, and anybody receiving guns must undergo a background check.

The background check may not be a problem, as Simmons has said people can "drop the gun in the box," presumably for the police to pick up. McPhee asserts that "cops... will be near by," but I'd like verification of that fact. Will police officers be present at the church during the entire event? (Good luck getting criminals to show up.) Will they collect the box after the fact? Will anyone else receive guns?

Notably, the gun-show law does not make any exceptions if police are the recipients of the guns. While the background checks presumably would be taken care of, the posting and recording requirements would still apply.

Also note that Colorado law imposes criminal penalties on the people turning in their guns, if they don't make sure the recipient has undergone a background check. The person turning in a gun has the legal obligation to "obtain approval of a transfer from the Colorado Bureau of Investigation after a background check has been requested by a licensed gun dealer." Presumably the CBI could issue a blanket approval for a particular officer.

One question I'd like to ask Simmons and Holmes is whether they voted for Amendment 22.

The advocates of Amendment 22 intended to make it harder to transfer guns. They've succeeded, in ways that neither they nor I anticipated. But this is a fact thus far excluded from Denver's newspapers, which were hardly as reserved about cheerleading the passage of Amendment 22.

Gun Buy-Back Hits Legal Snag

On November 14 I pointed out that a proposed gun buy-back in Denver would have to meet the legal requirements of a gun show. The organizers would have to post gun-show notices, have a licensed gun dealer on the premises to record the transactions, and make sure that anyone accepting guns goes through a background check. There's still no word on whether the organizers intend to follow these legal requirements. However, the event was delayed due to another legal problem, as the Rocky Mountain News reports:

Denver park officials said organizers obtained a permit for the anti-violence part of their program. But the city forbids firearms in any park. ...

Alvertis Simmons, an event organizer, said the rally was the subject of media reports and that he explicity told city officials it would include a gun buy back program. Organizers were offering gun owners $50 in exchange for each firearm.

But, Simmons said, no one from the city told him it would be illegal to hold the gun buy back at the park until Friday.

Simmons and organizers have decided to postpone the rally until Dec. 27, when it will be held at the New Covenant Christian Church, 825 Ivanhoe St.

So now a church will host the gun show. I'll check to see whether the church intends to follow the law. We wouldn't want any loopholes, now would we?

Kopel Talks Guns, Taiwan

Dave Kopel discussed guns, Taiwan, and FreeColorado.com at the Independence Institute banquet November 13. Listen to the mp3 recording of the interview. A partial transcript follows.

Ari: We're with Dave Kopel. First of all, congratulations on the Supreme Court gun case.

Dave: Thank you very much.

Ari: I know you did a lot of work on that and a lot of work over many years doing research. Where's this headed? Do you think the federal Dems will take the lead of Colorado Dems and kind of play hands off on the gun issue, or are you worried about what the federal Dems are going to do on that? I know you've written about Obama's anti-gun stances, but are they really going to do anything or are they going to play hands-off?

Dave: I think even while we fear the worst, we can hope for the best. It's very unlikely that anti-Second Amendment stuff is going to be the top of the Obama and Democratic Congressional agenda early in 2009, because the economic issues are so much larger right now. But Obama is in his heart probably the most extreme anti-gun president we've ever had. So my guess would be, he'll do like John Howard did in Australia, and various administrations did in the United Kingdom, which is have a very fierce anti-gun agenda ready to go as soon as there's a terrorist attack or some other infamous crime, and they sense a brief window of public panic when they can try to push something through without the time for reflection.

Ari: Are there already or do you know of upcoming legal challenges based on the Supreme Court's decision and ruling, which was fairly limited in its application?

Dave: There are a variety of cases going forward. The most important issue is going to be whether the Second Amendment is a limit only on the federal government, or like most of the rest of the Bill of Rights it also limits state and local governments. There have been challenges to the handgun ban in Chicago, challenges to the ban on gun possession in San Francisco's public housing authority, and a challenge to a local ban on gun shows in Southern California. And any of those cases could be the one which I hope will go the Supreme Court. And while we have a good Supreme Court -- before Obama ruins it -- I'd like to see a case get up there and have the incorporation issue decided. That is, whether the Second Amendment is incorporated in the Fourteenth Amendment and thereby made applicable to the state and local governments.

Ari: Are you going to continue to play an advisory role in those cases, or is that uncertain at this point?

Dave: I will play every possible role I can to help out...

Ari: Well, again, congratulations on that, and thanks a lot for your tireless efforts.

Dave: It's another sign of how ideas really do matter. And this has been a long struggle over thirty years to bring the Second Amendment back from its moribund state in law. It was always very strong in the hearts and minds of the American people, but there was a lot of scholarship written over the last thirty years, and I was happy to have played a part in helping with some of that, that has really made the Second Amendment regain its proper role in American life, and as an important part of the Bill of Rights, just like any other.

Ari: Do you have any other projects going right now? I know you're always writing about something.

Dave: I've been doing more and more work on Taiwan issues is recent years, and trying to support the rights of democratic self-determination of the people of the independent nation of Taiwan, which is a target of Chinese imperialist neocolonialism... I want to do what I can to help Taiwan maintain its freedom and independence...

Ari: There's this strange tension in China, where they still have many totalitarian aspects, but they also have some more market robustness. Do you see one side as gaining force over another, or is it just a hopelessly chaotic mix and the moment? How do you see that as developing over the next decade, say?

Dave: It's very hard to predict, and it could go either way. But clearly the model that the Chinese dictatorship wants is the one they see in Singapore, which is where you maintain an authoritarian government, at the same time having enough economic freedom to keep the people happy...

Ari: Do you have anything else that I should be reporting on my web page?

Dave. Yeah. Thanks to you and to the Colorado Freedom Report for the great work you've been doing for ten years. You have accomplished a great deal single-handed. You're an important voice in Colorado's political dialog. And I agree with you about 97 percent of the time, and even on those other three percent, I think you provide an important perspective, and it's a great blessing for Colorado to have you here. Even though you don't realize it in your own atheistic way, God's put you here for a purpose.

Ari: Well, I appreciate that, seriously, Dave. Well, thanks a lot for your time, and we'll see you next year.

See the collected posts about the Independence Institute's 2008 banquet.

Make Gun Training a Priority

The following article originally was publshed on November 24, 2008, by Grand Junction's Free Press.

If you buy a gun, make training a priority

by Linn and Ari Armstrong

The media have reported a spike in the sale of firearms. The number of people signing up for classes to qualify for concealed carry also has increased. Firearms instructors have seen more interest since 9/11. Local instructors also have seen the fraction of women in class rise from a quarter to half.

Your elder author Linn serves as an instructor for the National Rifle Association's Basis Pistol and Personal Protection classes. In a recent class, a student asked what the difference is between NRA classes and ones lasting only three or four hours. Linn offered to take up the question at the end of class. We'll start to answer it here.

Before carrying a gun for defensive purposes, one must answer a crucial question: Am I prepared the take the life of another human being to save my own life or the life of a family member? Do my religious and philosophical beliefs allow me to potentially take a life in self defense? Am I prepared to accept or tolerate the judgment of my family, friends, and neighbors if I must defend myself with lethal force?

Barring cases of immediate threats, one should view the carrying of a concealed weapon as a full-time commitment. Chances are that if you carry a gun, you'll never need to pull it from the holster in an emergency. Still, we don't put on the seatbelt every time we get in the car because we expect to get in a crash. There's no need to put on your seatbelt after the crash, and there's no opportunity to go home and retrieve your firearm once you find yourself in a life-or-death situation.

Before Colorado liberalized the concealed carry laws in 2003, some got a permit as the local authorities allowed. Others carried illegally under the notion that it's better to be tried by twelve than buried by six.

The need for a statewide concealed carry law arose from the language of Colorado's constitution, Article II, Section 13, regarding the right to bear arms. The text states, "The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons."

The common perception at the time, we are told, was that only prostitutes and gamblers carried guns concealed, while real men carried guns openly on their hips. Yet there is an important tactical advantage to carrying a gun concealed. If you are the only one in a group carrying a visible firearm, any criminal intent on committing mayhem will make you his first target.

The Colorado Constitution contains some of the strongest language in the nation for self-defense with a gun, though the last phrase puts concealed carry in the hands of the legislature.

The law offers a remedy for treating somebody as a criminal for putting on a jacket that happens to hide a gun on the hip. True, some counties unnecessarily place CCW holders on the same list as rapists and murderers. An advantage of the Colorado law is that 29 states have adopted similar laws granting reciprocity.

What is training for concealed carry and where does one receive it? The NRA describes training as an activity that produces a change in knowledge, skill, and attitude. Linn encourages instructors to view this concept as a circle: more knowledge encourages one to seek out more skills, which in turn encourage an attitude of seeking out more knowledge.

Grand Valley Training Club has faithfully adhered to the NRA training program for students and instructors. All of the instructors volunteer their time. The fee for the 18-hour-plus course is $75.00. Most equivalent courses in Denver run from $250 to $350 per person.

The fee includes three hours of legal review, usually taught by Palisade Police Chief Carroll Quarles or Sheriff's Investigator Beverly Jarrell. District Attorney Pete Hautzinger and Chief Deputy District Attorney Dan Rubinstein also have conducted this portion of the class. As one student said, "The law portion of the class is well worth the price of the ticket."

One of the volunteer instructors, a retired law enforcement officer and explosives expert, worries that, without adequate training, some with concealed-carry permits may lapse in safe, effective practices.

After the recent class that Linn helped conduct, the student answered his own question: "There is no way a three or four hour class can give what is required."

Alon Stivi, who has conducted advanced training classes in the area for police and civilians (see DirectMeasures.com) states, "Training is not a game! A serious gap exists between the training available on the market and what actually works in the real world. In a world of rising terrorism and violence, there is only one way of being prepared: Being informed."


Linn is a local political activist and firearms instructor with the Grand Valley Training Club. His son Ari edits FreeColorado.com from the Denver area.

A Gun-Show Loophole?

The Denver Post reports:

A group of community activists has raised $1,000 to buy guns from owners in order to trim gun violence in Denver. ...

The group will pay $50 per gun at an anti-violence and gun-buyback rally scheduled for noon Dec. 6, at the Martin Luther King Jr. memorial in Denver City Park.

The guns will be turned over to the police, said Denver police spokeswoman Sharon Hahn.

"Anybody can bring an illegal gun in at any time. Any time that illegal weapons are taken off the street, we are pleased," she said. ...

The $1,000 is enough for 20 guns.

This is a great way to pay people for junked out, nonfunctional guns worth less than $50.

But Denver police spokeswoman Sharon Hahn muddles the issue with her reference to "illegal guns." What are these "illegal guns?" Please do tell. Guns can be used in illegal ways, but I'd really like to know which guns Hahn thinks are themselves "illegal" that will be purchased for $50. (Watch out: the disarmament rhetoric is already ramping up.)

But wait a minute... do these activists plan on meeting the requirements of Colorado's gun-show law (which I opposed)?

Colorado statute 12-26.1-106 states:

(3) "Gun show" means the entire premises provided for an event or function, including but not limited to parking areas for the event or function, that is sponsored to facilitate, in whole or in part, the purchase, sale, offer for sale, or collection of firearms at which:

(a) twenty-five or more firearms are offered or exhibited for sale, transfer, or exchange; or

(b) not less than three gun show vendors exhibit, sell, offer for sale, transfer, or exchange firearms.

(4) "Gun show promoter" means a person who organizes or operates a gun show.

(5) "Gun show vendor" means any person who exhibits, sells, offers for sale, transfers, or exchanges, any firearm at a gun show, regardless of whether the person arranges with a gun show promoter for a fixed location from which to exhibit, sell, offer for sale, transfer, or exchange any firearm.

Clearly this activist group is a gun show under Colorado law.

The statutes continue:

12-26.1-101. Background checks at gun shows - penalty.

(1) Before a gun show vendor transfers or attempts to transfer a firearm at a gun show, he or she shall:

(a) require that a background check, in accordance with section 24-33.5-424, C.R.S., be conducted of the prospective transferee; and

(b) obtain approval of a transfer from the Colorado Bureau of Investigation after a background check has been requested by a licensed gun dealer, in accordance with section 24-33.5-424, C.R.S.

(2) A gun show promoter shall arrange for the services of one or more licensed gun dealers on the premises of the gun show to obtain the background checks required by this article.

(3) If any part of a firearm transaction takes place at a gun show, no firearm shall be transferred unless a background check has been obtained by a licensed gun dealer.

(4) Any person violating the provisions of this section commits a class 1 misdemeanor and shall be punished as provided in section 18-1.3-501, C.R.S.

I'll be interested to see whether the activist group abides by this law -- and whether the law will be selectively enforced.

Update: Of course, the activist group could have a police officer attend the event to take possession of the guns, and presumably the officer could easily pass a background check. Or the activist group could have one or two members pass a background check and collect the guns. However, note the language: "A gun show promoter shall arrange for the services of one or more licensed gun dealers on the premises of the gun show to obtain the background checks required by this article." So the background checks may not be performed prior to the gun show.

If police officers will attend the event in person, will they be on the city's clock, or will they volunteer or get paid by the activist group? It would be inappropriate for the police to spend tax dollars on such an overtly political cause.

Furthermore, the licensed gun dealer on hand must record the transfer of every single firearm, as provided by law:

12-26.1-102. Records - penalty.

(1) A licensed gun dealer who obtains a background check on a prospective transferee shall record the transfer, as provided in section 12-26-102, C.R.S., and retain the records, as provided in section 12-26-103, C.R.S., in the same manner as when conducting a sale, rental, or exchange at retail.

(2) Any individual who gives false information in connection with the making of such records commits a class 1 misdemeanor and shall be punished as provided in section 18-1.3-501, C.R.S.

The gun show also must follow the posting requirement:

12-26.1-104. Posted notice - penalty.

(1) A gun show promoter shall post prominently a notice, in a form to be prescribed by the executive director of the department of public safety or his or her designee, setting forth the requirement for a background check as provided in this article.

(2) Any person violating the provisions of this section commits a class 1 misdemeanor and shall be punished as provided in section 18-1.3-501, C.R.S.

So, again, I'll be interested to see whether the activist group follows the law required of it as a gun show.

Supreme Court Issues Spirited Gun Ruling

The following article originally appeared in Grand Junction's July 7 Free Press.

Supreme Court issues spirited gun ruling

by Linn and Ari Armstrong

The Supreme Court's June 26 Heller decision affirmed the individual right to own a gun just in time for the celebration of our nation's Declaration of Independence.

Unfortunately, some of the negative commentary we've seen fails to do what the majority decision by Antonin Scalia does: take seriously and answer opposing arguments. Instead, some critics dredge up the same tired arguments to claim the Second Amendment means something different that what it clearly states.

Obviously, we cannot review the entire decision here, yet we'll highlight some of the more spirited debates. For the entire decision see SupremeCourtUS.gov. See also FreeColorado.com (June 28), Volokh.com, and DaveKopel.org. (We congratulate Kopel, who works out of Golden's Independence Institute, for his contribution to the victory.) For extensive documentation, see DCGunCase.com.

Incidentally, we were pleasantly surprised to see listed with this last source, joining the National Rifle Association, a supportive brief from the American Civil Liberties Union, which argues "that the Second Amendment does protect an individual right to keep and bear arms..." Lest the matter be considered only a conservative issue, Pink Pistols and Gays and Lesbians for Individual Liberty also filed a supportive brief.

On to the debate! The Second Amendment states, "A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Does the first part limit the second?

Scalia argues that "the former [clause] does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose." Referring to other historical cases, Scalia notes that "a prefatory clause does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause." In answer to Stevens's claim that such a reading ignores the force of the first clause, Scalia replies that "operative provisions should be given effect as operative provisions, and prologues as prologues."

The "right of the people" obviously refers to an individual right, not only in the Second but in the First and Fourth Amendments. Scalia argues, "Stevens is of course correct... that the right to assemble cannot be exercised alone, but it is still an individual right, and not one conditioned upon membership in some defined 'assembly'... And Justice Stevens is dead wrong to think that the right to petition is 'primarily collective in nature'," according to historical sources.

Does "bear arms" mean only to carry weapons as a soldier? No. In pretending otherwise, notes Scalia, Stevens and others "manufacture a... definition, whereby 'bear arms' connotes the actual carrying of arms... but only in the service of an organized militia. No dictionary has ever adopted that definition, and we have been appraised of no source that indicates that it carried that meaning at the time of the founding."

Restricting the phrase "would cause the protected right to consist of the right to be a soldier or to wage war -- an absurdity that no commentator has ever endorsed," Scalia adds. Moreover, if "bear arms" means only to serve as a soldier, then what does "keep and bear arms" mean? Scalia writes, "It would be rather like saying 'He filled and kicked the bucket' to mean 'He filled the bucket and died.' Grotesque."

Stevens relies on a Linguists' Brief to support the notion that "bear arms" means only to serve as a soldier, Scalia notes. That brief dismisses other non-military uses, such as "bear arms... for the purpose of killing game," as "expressly qualified," Scalia quotes. In other words, "bear arms" supposedly only has non-military meaning if used in a sentence that clearly states some other purpose.

Scalia replies, "That analysis is faulty. A purposive qualifying phrase that contradicts the word or phrase it modifies is unknown this side of the looking glass (except, apparently, in some courses on Linguistics)." While "a modifier can limit the purpose" of bearing arms such as to killing game, that hardly suggests the unqualified right "to keep and bear arms" refers only to the military. The fact that bearing arms can be qualified -- for military use, for killing game, for self-defense -- shows that alone it carries no military implications.

We'll stop there. We bet you didn't know that Supreme Court decisions could be not only refreshingly sensible but funny. What's better than making fun of pedantic linguists? (We imagine they're still trying to figure out the bit about kicking the bucket.)

With his Heller decision, Scalia has done more than protect a Constitutionally enshrined right. He has assured the people that at least some in government won't distort the clear meaning of our founding documents to allow limitless state power. While we dispute some of the exceptions Scalia allows, we're gratified to learn that, here in America, individual rights still matter.

Thanks to Scalia's well-reasoned analysis of the meaning of the Second Amendment, the pretense that it protects only state militias has not merely stubbed its toe on the bucket but kicked it completely.


Linn is a local political activist and firearms instructor with the Grand Valley Training Club. His son Ari edits FreeColorado.com from the Denver area.

Heller in the Rocky

Today The Rocky Mountain News published my article on the Heller decision. It begins:

Self-defense is a fundamental human right. Now the Supreme Court has affirmed what most Coloradans have long held and what our state's constitution also strongly protects: the individual's right to own a gun.

The June 26 ruling on District of Columbia v. Heller overturns Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban and requirement that guns be kept inoperable in the home. Gone is the fantasy that the Second Amendment protects only state militias.

I go on to quote a bit from the decision, discuss its various defensible qualifications, and then criticize some of its looser language.

The Rocky does a great job editing material. I did want to add three brief points, though, that didn't make it through editing. First, concealed carry properly is restrained by the policies of private-property owners; those who wish to ban guns on their property are free to do so. Second, the checks that our Founders instituted are not limited to those of the three distinct branches; voters check all the branches directly or indirectly, the two houses of Congress check each other, etc. Third, we should see Supreme Court decisions in general "as the minimum standard of liberty" (I also had in mind issues of free speech and economic freedom).

Read the entire piece.

Post, Rocky Err on Denver Gun Restrictions

The Denver Post misstated Denver gun ordinances today, and the Rocky Mountain News published a misleading claim about them.

Following is the Post's misstatement:

Gun ruling splits Coloradans
By Brian Malnes
June 27, 2008

Currently, Denver city ordinances... require state gun licenses to possess or own firearms...

Denver Assistant City Attorney David Broadwell said, "I don't know where he got that from... Clearly he misunderstood something I said or what somebody else said... It might have been conflating the state concealed carry issue..." Colorado residents do need a permit to carry a gun concealed.

Broadwell added that the facts around licensing are important, as "that's what some cities do," such as Washington, D.C. However, Colorado has no "generalized permit system," nor does Denver have any plans to require permits.

The Rocky claimed:

Supreme Court Decision won't affect regulations in Denver, experts say
By Berny Morson, Rocky Mountain News
Friday, June 27, 2008

In the city [of Denver]: major provisions
Semiautomatic weapons are banned in most cases.

Note that the quoted line was tacked on as extra information to the article, so it's not clear whether Morson wrote it.

Broadwell said the statement is true "to the extent that semiautomatic weapons are addressed in the assault weapons ordinance." However, I noted, most semiautomatic guns do not fall within Denver's assault-weapon classification. "I see your point," Broadwell said.

Broadwell also offered a more general disclaimer: "If there's not quotes around it... very often a [newspaper's] paraphrase will get something slightly awry."

Here's how Denver's Municipal Code defines an assault weapon:

Sec. 38-130. Assault weapons.
(b) Definitions...
(1) Assault weapon shall include all firearms with any of the following characteristics:
a. All semiautomatic action, centerfire rifles with a detachable magazine with a capacity of twenty-one (21) or more rounds.
b. All semiautomatic shotguns with a folding stock or a magazine capacity of more than six (6) rounds or both. ...

An Individual Right

Obviously the big news of the day is that the Supreme Court has affirmed an individual right to own a gun under the Second Amendment. That's all for now, because I'll be spending the next few hours reading the opinion. Volokh Conspiracy already has some interesting analysis of the decision; a major issue seems to be Fourteenth Amendment incorporation. Eugene Volokh writes, "The majority doesn't clearly signal its view on the question, but it does suggest that simply citing some late 1800s cases which rejected incorporation (at a time when incorporation was generally being rejected as to nearly all of the Bill of Rights) will not suffice."

Supreme Decision Due on D.C. Handgun Ban

The Supreme Court's D.C. gun-ban ruling is due soon.

Dave Kopel writes,

The Brady Campaign's preemptive announcement of defeat in District of Columbia v. Heller contains an interesting bit of spin:

But given that McCain stood by his support for closing "the gun-show loophole" during a recent speech to the N.R.A., the Brady Campaign president hopes that new gun restrictions can make headway regardless of who wins in November.

"For John McCain to be the political candidate of the NRA shows how things have changed," Helmke said.

Plus ca "change," plus c'est la meme chose. In 2000, the NRA endorsed Texas Governor George W. Bush, who supported a similar provision regarding gun shows. Accordingly, the NRA's endorsement of McCain is not good evidence that gun control is more popular in 2008 than it was in 2000.

Of course, in my book this speaks well neither of McCain nor of the NRA.

But the important part is that the Brady Campaign expects to lose. ABC reports:

The nation's leading gun control group filed a "friend of the court" brief back in January defending the gun ban in Washington, D.C. But with the Supreme Court poised to hand down a potentially landmark decision in the case, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence fully expects to lose.

"We've lost the battle on what the Second Amendment means," campaign president Paul Helmke told ABC News. "Seventy-five percent of the public thinks it's an individual right. Why are we arguing a theory anymore? We are concerned about what we can do practically."

In other words, the goal of the Brady Campaign now is to restrict the "individual right" to own a gun as severely as possible.

Denver Post on Guns

Michael Booth and Kevin Simpson have written a surprisingly balanced article about gun ownership for The Denver Post, not a paper to which readers usually look for balance regarding such issues.

Unfortunately, the authors do get some points wrong. My criticisms should not be interpreted as a blanket condemnation of the article, but as a corrective to an article that's largely good.

The authors sound surprised to report that, in handgun safety classes, people spend much of their "class time learning how to avoid actually using a gun." The authors call this a "paradox," but it is the standard orientation of gun owners.

The authors correctly note that those with concealed-carry permits compose an "exceptionally law-abiding group." Unfortunately, the authors misstate the evidence regarding guns and crime. They write: "Gun enthusiasts argue more guns equal less crime... but researchers point to a long-term decline influenced by larger forces and no impact on crime attributable to concealed-carry laws."

It is true that "larger forces" play the bigger role. However, it is simply not true that "researchers" -- suggesting all researchers -- have found no impact of concealed-carry laws. Some researchers have found that concealed-carry reduces crime, others have found that it does not reduce crime, and no researcher has found that concealed carry increases crime.

Moreover, plenty of unassailable research shows that gun ownership reduces "hot" burglaries when the owners are home. John Lott, in addition to running statistical regressions showing that concealed-carry reduces crime, also ran regressions showing that gun ownership generally relates to lower crime, other things equal. (Lott reviews the research regarding guns and crime in The Bias Against Guns and More Guns, Less Crime. Such scholars as Joyce Malcolm, Gary Kleck, Don Kates, and Dave Kopel discuss many other issues including burglary. I review a portion of the evidence in my 2003 article, "Guns and the Media.")

The main problem with the Post's article is that it advocates "middle ground" gun restrictions but does not offer any actual evidence that such restrictions would work. The article ignores the evidence that existing restrictions (such as Brady registration checks) have failed, as well as the well-developed arguments as to why various proposed measures would cause more problems than they solved. For example, the article quotes State Senator Sue Windels, who has offered "lock up your safety" legislation that would demonstrably make homeowners less safe. Instead, the article offers polling data indicating that many people want more restrictions, as though polling data were a substitute for sound arguments. The article thus reveals a deeply pragmatic mindset that assumes a principled, consistent view must be wrong by virtue of the fact that it is principled and consistent, despite the fact that it is also supported by tight logic and robust empirical evidence.

CCW for School Safety

Recently I mentioned an "empty holster" protest planned for the University of Colorado, Boulder.

Diana Hsieh argues in The Gazette that faculty should be allowed to harry concealed handguns:

I'm a graduate student instructor at CU Boulder. Since 2001 I've been licensed to carry a concealed firearm in Colorado. Every time I hear of a new school shooting, I worry that some psychopath might unleash his rage on my campus. University policy forbids any firearms on campus. I obey that policy but it won't stop a killer from waltzing onto campus armed to the teeth. So if my students and I were in his path, we could only cower in fear in a corner of the classroom, helplessly waiting for him to kill us.

If the university respected my concealed carry permit, my good aim could protect my students from such an unthinkable end. Since I'm a law-abiding citizen trained in the proper use of firearms, my gun poses no danger whatsoever to other peaceful people.

To forbid a trained staff member from carrying a concealed handgun is dangerous and insanely stupid.

'Do Not Be a Hero'

Kirk Mitchell writes for the February 15 Denver Post:

"If danger presents itself, flee the area, if at all possible, or seek sanctuary in a locked classroom, restroom," according to one memo sent to staffers and students at metro campuses of the University of Colorado. "Do not be a hero. Be a good witness. Report what you have seen as soon as you can notify the campus police."

Vincent Carroll has responded with mild criticism:

People don't need exhortations to flee danger. That's what they will do almost every time without a prod.

But why the explicit warning against heroism?

Of course a university shouldn't encourage reckless behavior in a crisis, or try to shame people into taking chances they would otherwise avoid. Most of us aren't cut out for heroics anyway.

But do we really want to insist that people avoid heroics, as if there were something faintly disreputable about those who spontaneously risk their lives on behalf of others?

As my readers might expect, I want to offer a somewhat stronger criticism.

Generally, the advice to flee is appropriate for students. The problem with the advice is that it is not always possible to flee. In some cases, heroic action is the only reasonable way to protect one's life. Students who are unable to flee or "seek sanctuary" should attack, as their only other option is to wait to be murdered. For example, at a school shooting in Oregon, the killer "was tackled by other students." Here is a more detailed account of that story, as reported by the AP:

Jake Ryker was shot in the chest but managed to tackle a schoolmate who had opened fire in the Thurston High School cafeteria.

On Monday night, Jake's father, a Navy diver wearing his full dress uniform, presented him with the highest honor in the Boy Scouts of America.

Robert Ryker's hands trembled as he pinned the red ribbon with gold medallion of the Honor Medal with Crossed Palms to Jake's chest before a crowd of about 300 people at Thurston Christian Church. ...

Jake and his younger brother, Josh, 14, and three other Boy Scouts subdued the gunman after two other Thurston students were killed and 22 wounded on May 21.

Josh Ryker, Douglas and David Ure, and Adam Walburger all were presented Monday night with the Honor Medal, the second-highest honor in scouting. It was the first time in the 88-year history of the Boy Scouts that five medals for heroism were awarded at one time.

"I believe it was no coincidence that the five who stopped the shooting were Scouts," said Jerry Dempsy, Oregon Trail Council executive for the Boy Scouts. "I'm so grateful they stopped the killing when they did."

Jake was shot through the chest during the shooting spree. When the gunman ran out of ammunition and started to reload, Jake tackled him, and was shot in a finger. His brother and the three other Scouts piled on and held the shooter until help arrived.

Notably,"Jake Ryker gave credit to the fact that he had taken a marksmanship and safety training program given by the National Rifle Association. ... His father, Rob Ryker said that both Jake and his 14-year-old brother, Josh, had taken the course." Because of his training, Ryker knew when to tackle the killer. (Dave Kopel mentions Ryker in his article about "common-sense school protection.")

And, sometimes, more mature and better-trained students may choose to intervene rather than flee, if they reasonably believe that they can save lives without putting themselves in too great a danger. For example, at the Appalachian School of Law, two armed students subdued a murderer.

Mitchell's article does not make clear whether the "memo sent to staffers and students" was intended also as advice for staffers, or as information for staffers to pass along to students. If it was intended as advice for staffers, then the advice is despicable, for instructors have accepted as a chosen responsibility the care of their students. While no staffer should place him or herself in undue danger without good reason, instructors have a moral responsibility to take reasonable, heroic actions to protect their students, as Joel Myrick did.

Outside of the school environment, there is Jeanne Assam, who used her concealed, Beretta 9 mm semiautomatic handgun to shoot a murderer at New Life Church.

The rash of copy-cat school shootings, in part encouraged by irresponsible media coverage, reflect a cultural sickness in which moral relativism and nihilism undermine some people's values and very lives. The solution to such problems is not to impose gun restrictions that fail to impede criminals but that only make self-defense more difficult.

CU's policy is only helping to create what Jeff Snyder calls a "Nation of Cowards." But cowardice only encourages criminals.

If CU's administrators wanted to act to save lives in the event of a violent attack -- as well as to deter such attacks -- they would establish a policy of allowing trained staffers to carry concealed handguns. The memo to staffers should then read, "If someone starts attacking your students with intent to kill, then, within reasonable guidelines of safety appropriate to an emergency situation, shoot the bastard."

Legislature Tries to Restrict Guns, Abortion

The following column originally appeared in Grand Junction's Free Press.

February 18, 2008

Pick your poison: Dems and GOP both violate rights

by Linn and Ari Armstrong

A legislative committee heard two bills in two weeks. Both votes split along party lines. The first week, all the Democrats voted to violate our rights. The second week, all the Republicans did so.

Senator Sue Windels sponsored Bill 49 to impose criminal penalties on gun owners who do not store their guns the way that district attorneys deem proper after the fact. On Monday, February 4, the Senate State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee heard the bill. Windels joined with fellow Democrats Chris Romer and Abel Tapia to pass the bill to the next committee, over the objections of Republicans Bill Cadman and David Schultheis.

On February 11, the committee heard Schultheis's Bill 95 (which Cadman cosponsored) to impose criminal penalties on doctors who fail to observe a 24-hour waiting period for their clients seeking an abortion. Both Republicans voted for the bill, though the Democrats killed it.

While the bills cover quite different situations, they have much in common. Both bills would impose useless additions to Colorado's already-massive books of statutes. Both would create arbitrary and onerous restrictions on activities that people have a right to pursue but that some ultimately want to ban altogether.

Let's first look at the gun bill. As the Daily Sentinel pointed out earlier in the month, existing laws already cover cases of placing children in danger. The effect of Bill 49 would be to discourage citizens from keeping firearms for self-defense. When citizens are too afraid of prosecution to defend themselves, the advantage goes to the real criminals.

As Cadman said in a Republican press release, "We have a good balance right now between the need to keep kids from misusing guns and the right of homeowners to be able to defend their families. This bill would upset that balance by giving home intruders the upper hand and tying the hands of homeowners... This bill likely would have a chilling effect on gun ownership."

Originally, Bill 49 stated that it applied if a gun owner "reasonably should know that a minor would be able to gain access to the firearm" without permission. And who gets to decide what's "reasonable?" Prosecutors, some of whom are unfriendly toward defensive gun ownership. The committee dropped that language in favor of a line that says the bill applies in cases of "criminal negligence." In other words, you commit "criminal negligence" if you commit "criminal negligence" -- again as determined by prosecutors.

Another problem with the bill is that it says it doesn't apply if a minor obtains the gun through burglary or robbery. So does the criminal prosecution of the gun owner hinge upon the criminal conviction of the minor? Who decides whether the minor should face charges? Apparently, again the prosecutor gets to make the call.

Of course, while many Colorado Democrats don't express this motivation, many activists who favor storage laws, waiting periods, and other restrictions ultimately want to ban the use and ownership of guns, at least for defensive purposes.

What about the abortion bill? Bill 95 would have required a doctor to provide information about ultrasounds to all women seeking an abortion, then imposed a 24-hour waiting period. But women already know what abortion implies -- the destruction of a potential but not actual person -- and are already free to order ultrasounds.

As Jody Berger of Planned Parenthood pointed out to us, an ultrasound cannot even detect a pregnancy before five weeks. And Planned Parenthood already administers an ultrasound for every abortion in its clinics, which offer abortions from around five to eighteen weeks of pregnancy. (The clinics offer "morning after" medications up to 72 hours following intercourse.)

Berger said, "What would have been onerous is the 24-hour waiting period. In a lot of rural areas, a doctor is available only one day a week. And clients who drive three or four hours to come to the Planned Parenthood center in Denver have to make that drive twice. If they come with their husband or boyfriend, that means two people have to take two days off of work."

So Schultheis, who is on record opposing waiting periods for purchases of firearms, is the sponsor of the bill to impose waiting periods for abortions.

Mike Saccone recorded the hypocrisy of Republicans and Democrats alike in his January 23 and February 11 stories for the Sentinel. Shultheis said his bill was "trying to whatever degree we can to reduce the number of abortions" -- the exact attitude of the anti-gun lobby toward gun ownership. Of course, Schultheis really wants to ban abortion, just as many anti-gun activists ultimately want to ban defensive gun ownership.

And Romer said of the abortion bill, "It puts a burden on certain people" -- the way that the gun bill that Romer voted for puts a burden on gun owners.

These Democrats and Republicans deserve each other. But Colorado deserves better.

Linn is a local political activist and firearms instructor with the Grand Valley Training Club. His son Ari edits FreeColorado.com from the Denver area.

Shooting No 'Accident'

The Rocky Mountain News reported today:

Mesa County sheriff's deputies are investigating an accidental shooting at a Grand Junction gun store Saturday, in which an employee was shot in the abdomen.

The accident happened at Jerry's Outdoor Sports, a sheriff's spokeswoman said Sunday. Witnesses said a customer had brought a .243-caliber rifle into the store for servicing. While the weapon was being worked on, it discharged a bullet...

Okay, when you're working on a gun that you haven't bothered to unload, the resulting discharge is not an "accident." Apparently the shooting was unintentional, but an "accident" it certainly was not. "Always keep your gun unloaded until you're ready to shoot." It's one of the essential three rules of gun safety.

Also, why does the Rocky use passive language? The gun "was being worked on?" The gun "discharged a bullet?" Where was the person during all of this working and discharging? Guns are inanimate objects; they don't fire themselves.

Sentinel Opposes Storage Bill

The Daily Sentinel of Grand Junction published a strongly worded editorial February 5 against the gun storage bill. Tracking a point I made yesterday, the Sentinel points out that existing laws already address the issue of putting children in danger.

The paper goes on to make two points that I did not make (though I've written about in years past). First, the penalties of the bill hardly match the inherent penalties of irresponsible gun handling: "On top of losing your child or seeing him involved in a horrible crime, you could be fined."

Second, the law would only change the behaviors of people who are already safe:

[R]esponsible gun owners already keep their guns secured when minors are around. Equally important, they make sure their children are instructed in gun safety and understand the rules with respect to access to their weapons.

However, the irresponsible gun owners -- those who care little about having loaded guns available and easily accessible even if their are children around -- aren’t likely to change simply because the state creates a new misdemeanor charge and a fine for violating it.

The result of the bill would be to discourage responsible, defensive gun ownership and thereby empower criminals. It's nice to see that the Sentinel, unlike various state legislators, has thought this one through.

Unsafe Storage

They're back. Colorado's Democrats held off for as long as they could, but, as predicted, their animosity toward peaceable gun owners is rising to the surface. (There are some exceptions among Colorado's Democrats.)

Mike Saccone reported the story for the February 5 Daily Sentinel, which assigned the biased headline, "Bill would crack down on careless gun storage." The bill would do no such thing. It would instead intimidate gun owners who store their guns safely, giving criminals the upper hand. A more accurate headline would have stated, "Bill would coddle criminals, punish responsible gun owners." (Of course, the Sentinel could also consider hiring headline writers capable of distinguishing between neutral and slanted language. "Bill would create new gun storage rules" would have been fine.)

Saccone writes, "Senate Bill 49 would make it a misdemeanor offense for an adult to fail to safely and securely store a firearm, which a 16-year-old or 17-year-old child could then use to harm someone or take the gun to school."

But, as I wrote back in 2001, existing laws already cover cases of putting children in mortal danger, without discriminating against one class of citizens (i.e., gun owners). The Democrats, though, wish to punish gun owners in particular and criminalize them for responsible storage of a gun, which in many contexts means storing the gun such that it is available for potential defensive use.

Of course, many of those who support the "storage" bill generally oppose defensive gun ownership, and their strategy is to incrementally outlaw it.

The bills are available at the Colorado legislature's web page.

The new twist for Senate Bill 08-049 is that it emphasizes "teenage suicide." This is a clever political move, because, obviously, nobody likes teenage suicide. But why is that suddenly the issue? The bill states, "A recent and comprehensive study of the effectiveness of laws to prevent minors' access to firearms shows a significant decrease in firearm suicides by minors in states that have adopted these laws..." I have not read the unspecified "recent and comprehensive study." But the uncritical reader might miss the significance of the phrase "firearm suicides." The anti-gun lobby apparently doesn't care whether the total suicide rate stays the same, so long as "firearm suicides" go down. If people switch methods of suicide, that's totally irrelevant, so far as the anti-gun lobby is concerned. Obviously, the proper goal is to responsibly reduce total teenage suicides, which are fundamentally unrelated to gun laws.

Nor does the anti-gun lobby care whether more people are victimized by criminals who have less to fear when they break into somebody's home.

Another problem with the bill is its invocation of the "reasonable person" standard. Unfortunately, prosecutors are not always reasonable; sometimes they prosecute cases to inflate their statistics so that they can run for higher office. Yet the bill requires the posting of notices that demand that "you store[] the firearm in a manner that a reasonable person would believe is inaccessible to a minor." Gee, nothing ambiguous about that!

For once, the Republicans have discovered their back bones:

ColoradoSenateNews.com

Controversial curb on gun owners passes committee on party-line vote

Tuesday, 05 February 2008

Republicans sided with a host of witnesses in a Senate committee hearing Monday challenging a Democrat measure placing new conditions on guns stored at home. The State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee's GOP members said Senate Bill 49 would make it much harder for homeowners to protect themselves and their families against home intrusions and burglaries.

SB 49, sponsored in the Senate by Arvada Democrat Sue Windels, holds homeowners criminally liable--subject to a misdemeanor charge--if minors obtain their firearms and commit suicide or a crime against another. Windels says the measure is meant to cut crime and teen suicides, but Republicans on the committee said the bill would backfire.

"Current law already addresses this issue," Sen. Bill Cadman, a Colorado Springs Republican on the committee, said after the hearing.

"We have a good balance right now between the need to keep kids from misusing guns and the right of homeowners to be able to defend their families," Cadman said. "This bill would upset that balance by giving home intruders the upper hand and tying the hands of homeowners."

Current law already bars people from knowingly or recklessly allowing firearms to fall into the hands of any person under the age of 18.

Cadman said the bill as drafted imposes a one-size-fits-all restriction on homeowners by coercing them into keeping their guns inaccessible. As a result, he said, guns not only would be difficult to use in those circumstances where a homeowner needs quick access for home defense but also could wind up discouraging more citizens from trying to defend themselves at all.

"This bill likely would have a chilling effect on gun ownership," Cadman said.

Cadman added that statistics show that a decline in the ability of homeowners to defend themselves leads to an increase in crimes against those homeowners.

Cadman and fellow Colorado Springs Republican Sen. Dave Schultheis voted against the proposal. It passed 3-2 on a party line vote.

Defenders of the right to self-defense contend SB 49 represents the latest in a series of swipes at gun ownership by law-abiding citizens since ruling Democrats took power in the General Assembly. Last year, Democrat Gov. Bill Ritter signed two bills into law that placed additional restrictions on the right of Coloradans to carry concealed weapon.

SB 49 is now en route to the Senate Appropriations Committee for consideration.

Nothing "Accidental" About Shooting

Alan Gathright wrote a story earlier today titled, "Shooting story backfires:"

At first, the 20-year-old man reported he was shot by a drive-by gunman Tuesday evening while walking with a friend near the Byers Library. ...

Now the victim admits he was accidentally shot in the back at a home when a 15-year-old buddy -- showing off a handgun -- placed it on a coffee table and it accidentally discharged. ...

"They were in a residence and had the gun out and the gun was put onto a table," [Arapahoe County sheriff's Capt. Mark] Fisher said. "It discharged and ended up shooting the 20-year-old in the back.

The description by the victim is obvious nonsense, and the description by the officer is misleading. Guns are inanimate objects. They do not fire themselves. If you place a gun on a table, it will not then "accidentally discharge" all on its own.

Instead, the 15-year-old "buddy" obviously violated all three of the main rules for firearm safety. First, he kept the gun loaded when he wasn't intending to use it. (Perhaps the magazine was in the semiautomatic gun, or perhaps the teen forgot or never learned that, even when the magazine is removed, a round might be left in the chamber.) Second, he pointed the gun at something that he didn't intend to shoot. Third, he probably put his finger on the trigger. My guess (assuming that the shooting actually involved a table) is that the teen discharged the gun while placing it on the table. The teen fired the gun, one way or another (again, assuming that the basic story is accurate). The shooting was no accident. It was the result of gross negligence.

[January 17 update: Of course I accept Steve D'Ippolito's statement in the comments: "Some guns are physically defective (or poorly designed) to the point where they will discharge when they get a sufficiently abrupt jolt." However, as D'Ippolito adds, somebody who tosses a loaded (and defective) gun onto a table, such that the muzzle points at a person, is still responsible for the consequences. That said, getting the full truth out of the characters involved may be impossible.]

The three main rules of gun safety can be described as the principles of "gun control:" chamber control, muzzle control, and trigger control. But apparently somebody else neglected the central principle of gun control: always keep your gun under your own control. The teen is manifestly too ignorant and negligent to handle a firearm.

Fortunately, many teens learn about gun safety and shoot responsibly and legally in the company of responsible adults.