Colorado Democrats unveil 3 more gun violence prevention proposals in wake of Boulder shooting

thedenverchannel.com ^ | Apr 29, 2021 | Blair Miller , Meghan Lopez

[real saxophonist]

Colorado Democrats unveil 3 more gun violence prevention proposals in wake of Boulder shooting

By: Blair Miller , Meghan Lopez

Apr 29, 2021

DENVER – Colorado Democrats on Thursday unveiled three more bills aimed at preventing gun violence – something they have pledged to do in the wake of the Boulder King Soopers shooting and with two other gun violence prevention bills already signed by the governor.

The bills, which sponsors discussed in a news conference and said would be formally introduced later Thursday, piggyback off of two other bills -- SB21-078 and HB21-1106, the safe storage and reporting of lost or stolen firearms – already passed by lawmakers and signed by Gov. Jared Polis this session.

A third bill which would force some domestic abusers to give up their firearms is still making its way through the legislative process.

The three new bills lawmakers will introduce would establish an Office of Gun Violence Prevention, strengthen background checks, and allow local communities to have local control over their gun laws, the sponsors said Thursday.

The sponsors called the three measures “common sense, live-saving policies” they say address what they called a public health crisis and epidemic of gun violence in Colorado.

Senate Majority Leader Steve Fenberg, D-Boulder, is sponsoring the local control bill. He said that by acting on a policy-by-policy basis, lawmakers can create safer communities across the state. But he said his bill acknowledges that different communities have different wants and needs when it comes to firearms.

“Each community has the unique expertise to know what it takes to make them safe,” he said. “…What works for Boulder might not work for Alamosa. What works for Sterling might not work for Denver. Our state includes a diverse set of communities and we should allow each to look out for the safety of their own.”

He and others said they are still awaiting more federal action on gun violence prevention but said that “cannot be an excuse for inaction.”

The suspect in the Boulder shooting is said by authorities to have purchased the weapon used, an AR-556, at a shop in Arvada legally. But the shooting came just days after a Boulder County District Court judge blocked the enforcement of a Boulder ban on assault style weapons and high capacity magazines, which cited a 2003 law that the local control bill aims to repeal, Fenberg said.

The local control was something that Boulder City Councilmember Aaron Brockett called for in the days after the Boulder shooting if there was not a national or state-level ban on assault weapons.

Sen. Rhonda Fields, D-Aurora, and Rep. Tom Sullivan, D-Centennial, are among the sponsors of the bill that would create the Office of Gun Violence Prevention, which they said would compile data on firearms use, gun violence and more, and perform education outreach on the state’s current laws, including its extreme risk protection order law.

“We need an office that’s responsible for prevention and intervention, and that’s what this bill is designed to do,” Fields said, adding that the data that the office would compile would further drive decision-making as it relates to gun violence at the state Capitol.

In an interview with Denver7 after the press conference, Sullivan said states like New York, Connecticut and Massachusetts already have similar programs in place to focus on education, intervention and researching gun violence.

“With an office like this with researchers out there doing it, we can find out maybe what the answer is and begin to do something about it,” Sullivan said.

He believes the establishment of this office could put Colorado at the front of the line for potential federal grants to combat gun violence if Congress passes reforms.

The third bill would implement a five-year ban on purchasing firearms for people convicted of certain violent misdemeanors, the sponsors said, expand background checks to cover misdemeanor convictions, and close the so-called “Charleston loophole” by which some people are still able to obtain firearms before their background check is complete or if it comes outside of the three-day window.

Those crimes include child abuse, hate crimes, animal cruelty, sexual assault and third-degree assault, lawmakers said.

Sen. Brittany Pettersen, D-Lakewood, is one of the sponsors of that bill and said she wanted the new measures to pass to protect her 15-month-old son from experiencing the gun violence she has seen over the decades as a Coloradan.

She also pointed to U.S. data showing 5,807 people were able to purchase firearms last year despite previous offenses which should have barred them from doing so and thousands more checks that were purged because they were not completed within a 90-day window.

“We’re not going to accept a reality where this is what our kids are going to have to go through,” she said. “This is a reality none of us should accept.”

Sen. Julie Gonzales, D-Denver, said the misdemeanors were intentionally selected after research and that lawmakers when writing the bill “didn’t say any misdemeanor and didn’t say any crime.”

The lawmakers said they were unfazed by more threats of recalls and opposition from Republicans, some of whom have already said they oppose the measures as of publication.

“We are standing before you working on issues the vast majority of Coloradans support,” said House Speaker Alec Garnett, D-Denver. “No one fears recalls on doing things the vast majority of Coloradans expect us to do.”

“The question was not how to ban assault weapons,” Fenberg added, “it was, what are the next steps we can take as a state that are going to save the most lives? These bills, we think, are the answer to that question. But that doesn’t mean the end, by any means.”

Sullivan, whose son Alex was killed in the Aurora theater shooting, described how he and some of the gun violence prevention groups present for Thursday’s announcement had started years ago discussing these types of measures in basements and “any space we could find to talk about ways to move the needle” and how much things had shifted since then. He was the lead sponsor of Colorado’s extreme risk protection order bill that was signed two years ago.

“Now, between the gun violence prevention bills that have already passed this session and the three bold new measures we are outlining today, this legislative session may end up being the most transformative legislature Colorado has ever seen as it relates to gun violence,” he said. “We might be the most transformative in the country. And in fact, we’re transforming the country. Don’t let anyone tell you what we’re doing today isn’t bold and transformational change.”

While the Democratic leadership from the House and Senate were excited about the new slate of bills, Republicans are already criticizing the measures.

Sen. John Cooke, R-Greeley, believes the local preemption bill in particular will create confusion for law abiding citizens since each city and county will be able to pass their own laws on gun reforms.

He also questioned the potential effectiveness of these bills in preventing someone from getting a firearm since they will still be able to purchase them in neighboring states.

“I think it’s another knee-jerk reaction coming from the Democrats on a tragedy that they have this attitude of, ‘Well we’ve got to do something no matter what it is,’ to make people feel better even though it won’t accomplish anything,” Cooke said.

He said he believes the state should instead focus on enforcing the laws currently on the books and give longer sentences to criminals who use firearms, though he disagrees with enforcing a magazine capacity ban.

Instead of closing the Charleston loophole, Cooke says lawmakers should focus on providing more funding to the Colorado Bureau of Investigation so that it can complete background checks more quickly.

House Republicans, meanwhile, wrote in a statement that everyone is sick of the gun violence and wants to figure out the root cause, including addressing mental health, which Democrats said they are also addressing through other bills.

“The creation of new bureaucracies is never the solution. Like the ‘Office of Saving People Money on Health Care’, the creation of the ‘Office of Gun Violence Prevention’ will only starve real efforts of scarce resources. A good start to finding solutions would be to increase the reimbursement rate for mental and behavioral health services,” the statement read.

It went on to say that revamping the background check system would be arbitrary.

Like the previous gun reform bills, this latest round of legislation is likely to face a lengthy, contentious debate in the House and Senate.

[real saxophonist]

This article is a little more in depth than the other one.

[mikelets456]

I’m sick of these death hucksters wringing their hands anytime there’s a killing with a gun to pass even more erroneous laws. We know there’s thousands and thousands of laws across the states, 460 pages of atf laws and dozens of federal laws that do little. No more bs laws and these treasonous pigs needs to be tarred and feather and run out of town.

[mikelets456]

I’m sick of these death hucksters wringing their hands anytime there’s a killing with a gun to pass even more erroneous laws. We know there’s thousands and thousands of laws across the states, 460 pages of atf laws and dozens of federal laws that do little. No more bs laws and these treasonous pigs needs to be tarred and feather and run out of town.

[2harddrive]

Benedict Biden: That’s his name!

Destroying America: That’s his game!!

[RandallFlagg]

Grave Dancing Ghouls

[Trump20162020]

“Each community has the unique expertise to know what it takes to make them safe,” he said. “…What works for Boulder might not work for Alamosa. What works for Sterling might not work for Denver. Our state includes a diverse set of communities and we should allow each to look out for the safety of their own.”

That sounds real good, but the problem is it's always a one-way street where liberal areas can have tighter gun laws than the gun laws at the state level, but conservative areas can't have laxer gun laws than the state ones.

[Pirate Ragnar]

“gun violence” is where all types of guns run around being violent. I guess they don’t need people.

[DoodleBob]

Office of Gun Violence Prevention, which they said would compile data on firearms use, gun violence and more, and perform education outreach on the state’s current laws, including its extreme risk protection order law.

First, how in the wild world of sports would this "Office" have protected the citizenry? Right...it wouldn't.

Second, there are scores of universities, think-tanks, and agitprop (sorry) media outlets that perform this function. How would this "Office" be any different? Right...it wouldn't.

In the world of investing, there is a concept of risk-minimization whereby you lower your risk of loss or volatility by spreading your eggs across several baskets. However, one risk you cannot diversity away is the "systematic risk" or the risk inherent in the system...call it market risk or whatever, the basic reality is some baseline level of risk will ALWAYS exist, and you can't avoid it.

Laws that support, life, liberty, and property are right and proper. Some laws act as a deterrent and will stop people on the margin from doing bad things...this is akin to diversifying away the non-systematic risk.

However, at some baseline level, in a relatively free society of 330MM people, you'll always have a few pathological maniacs who will kill. Thus, random with acts of violence are the systematic risk of a free society. Sure, maybe some laws can help, but in large measure unless you weld a GoPro to the heads of 330MM people with central monitoring in DC (and even that wouldn't be perfect...after all people in jail still get drugs and weapons), psychos gonna psycho.

The problem arises when pathological politicians propose legislation - aimed at the systematic risk, which by definition you can't evade/will always be there - that simply erodes the freedoms of law-abiding citizens.

Is this by design? I doubt bureaucrats are that smart, but I don't doubt the darkness of their souls.

[ThunderSleeps]

...establish an Office of Gun Violence Prevention...

An office whose sole real charter would be to create more red tape, making it ever more difficult to be a legal gun owner. A waste of taxpayer money with the intent of violating the Constitution.

...strengthen background checks...

Why? What is "strengthen" - exactly. Are they going to print the results on thicker bond paper? Use a bold font on the computer screen? Colorado already has background checks, they've closed the "gun show loophole," we have idiotic magazine capacity limits. All these were supposed to bring an end to gun violence, make us all safe. Obviously they didn't work. Any thinking person could have predicted that. Why should we listen to the same {censored} who keep coming up with ways to make it tougher for law abiding citizens to exercise their rights, while doing nothing to actually impact crime?

...allow local communities to have local control over their gun laws...

This is perhaps the worst one of the lot. It will result in a crazy patchwork of laws that will make it nearly impossible to travel around the state while legally carrying your firearm. Want to go spend the weekend in Estes Park? Well wait, is that where I can or cannot carry within the city limit? Want to stop for lunch in Boulder / Fort Collins on the way? Wait a second, is that the place where I have to unload and have my firearm locked in the car there? ... and on and on. The net effect will be to again, discourage people from exercising their rights.

[real saxophonist]

Both great responses. Thanks

[Bon of Babble]

Now is the time for Boulder, where the lefty university is located, to send in the social workers to show us how it’s done.

They don’t need more gun laws, they need more social workers to get at the “root” of the problem.

[DoodleBob]

Bravo. A few points -

What is "strengthen" - exactly. Are they going to print the results on thicker bond paper? Use a bold font on the computer screen?

This is priceless FRiend!

Colorado already has background checks, they've closed the "gun show loophole," we have idiotic magazine capacity limits. All these were supposed to bring an end to gun violence, make us all safe. Obviously they didn't work.

I'm not trying to make this a pandemic thread, but I alluded elsewhere to the parallel approaches in gun control and the conga line of "just one more thing and COVID84 will be over, just give us two weeks to flatten the curve/not enough, now we need social distancing/no, now we need mask mandates/not enough, we need business closures/nope..mandatory vaccinations...". Each impingement on liberty is NEVER enough for them.

[IYAS9YAS]

I’d say the single greatest way to reduce gun violence would be to take the guns from democrats.

[real saxophonist]

I couldn’t agree more.

[VanShuyten]

Thanks to local preemption laws passed by the Dims here in Virginia, I’m a criminal for about 10 minutes everyday when my dog-walking route takes us through the local park.

[lurk]

Do any of their proposals include muslin control?

[ThunderSleeps]

You have a point. Exact same thinking from the “if it saves just one life” crowd - whether they’re using kids or grandparents - surrender your freedoms and liberties for an unattainable ideal....