Posted on 04/29/2002 6:55:10 AM PDT by CFW
Panel's deciding vote rests with Musgrave
- The future of a highly controversial concealed-gun bill rests with just one lawmaker. At least in the short-term.
Republican Sen. Marilyn Musgrave knows her vote this week could determine whether House Bill 1410 survives the Senate Agriculture Committee - even if it dies later in the Senate Appropriations Committee.
The "shall-issue" measure requires sheriffs to issue concealed-weapons permits to Colorado residents age 21 and over, who are not criminals, habitual drunks or drug addicts, and who pass a training class. Current law gives sheriffs the option to deny anyone for any reason.
Musgrave also believes Senate President Stan Matsunaka - her likely rival for the 4th District congressional seat in November - intentionally put her on the "hot seat" by assigning HB1410 to the Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee, which could take up the bill Tuesday. Musgrave, an eight-year veteran of Colorado politics and a Fort Morgan businesswoman, says "I'm sure it was a maneuver on his part. But I can take the heat."
Matsunaka on Friday denied the charge but admitted "it does put her on the hot seat and that's OK with me."
Of the nine members on the committee, four say they will oppose the bill and four others say they will support it, leaving Musgrave the deciding vote.
"The pressure is on," Musgrave said with a laugh.
"Whether or not I vote for it could mean the bill passes the committee or fails."
Musgrave, who identifies herself as a social and fiscal conservative and pro-gun, historically has voted in favor of the least restrictive concealed-gun bills. Three years ago, she sponsored a measure that was more liberal than the current bill, but it was defeated.
But now another important dynamic is at play - the race for eastern Colorado's 4th Congressional District.
Musgrave is the leading Republican in the race, according to a poll her campaign conducted, and Matsunaka is the leading Democrat.
Matsunaka has been accused of co-sponsoring the gun bill simply to win votes in the 4th, an area top-heavy with gun supporters.
Matsunaka denies that, saying he voted for a similar gun bill in 1999.
A vote either way by Musgrave is likely to help Matsunaka, fellow lawmakers say. The bill's passage could win more votes for both, while its failure could bring Matsunaka support for having tried, without boosting Musgrave's campaign.
"I think she stands to lose more by voting against it," said fellow Republican Sen. Ron Teck of Grand Junction.
Matsunaka's committee assignment was a political maneuver, say critics such as Republican Sen. Mark Hillman of Burlington.
Hillman said the move was designed to single out Musgrave and try to make her look bad in the eyes of her constituents.
"That would mean I'm devious in my assignment of bills," Matsunaka said with a grin.
"I think it was sheer coincidence."
But, he admits, "there was some method to my madness." The Agriculture Committee has two conservative Republicans who could sway the vote - Musgrave and Hillman, of Burlington, Matsunaka said. Both have voted for and against various versions of gun proposals in the past.
Hillman said Friday he plans to oppose the current bill unless it's amended to make it less restrictive, while Musgrave said she's weighing her options.
"If this bill is going to be killed, I want it to be a bipartisan kill," Matsunaka said.
"That way, people will see that it's not just Democrats who kill gun bills."
If Musgrave votes for the bill and it is sent to the 10-member Senate Appropriations Committee to consider the proposal's $785,000 fiscal impact, then what?
Many think the committee will split 5-5, killing the bill with a tie vote. Some, including Musgrave, believe Matsunaka favors that outcome.
"I suppose (Matsunaka) sent it to Ag to put the heat on me and to the Appropriations Committee to die," she said.
If the Appropriations Committee passes the bill, it will go to the floor of the Senate, where, observers say, it will pass handily and is likely to be signed into law by the governor, drastically changing Colorado's current law.
Maybe she needs a little Freeper pressure".
There wouldn't be any gun control in this country if it wasn't for the dems and the occasional RINO tipping the scales.
And it if made the floor, it would have passed easily. Engler is a gun moderate at best. When he was holding up bills or pressuring them to stall, it was democrat Chris Dingell (John's son, and Chris is more pro-2a) that came through for us and he was hammering away at Engler. Engler eventually had enough of the heat from all sides and signed the Vear Bill he vetoed just last year.
I hope that pressure is against this POS bill.
[Link to Colorado General Assembly. Bills are in .pdf.]
HR1410 is not shall issue; it's may issue. For all but a couple counties, we would actually regress from our current situation. Just two of the real problems: 1) any home rule political subdivision - like Denver - could simply ignore the law; 2) any entity can prohibit carry -- businesses, public facilities, etc. Far better was HR1242, about as close to Vermont-style as you can get by writing a bill. Guess how far it got.
Don't be fooled by NRA support of HR1410, a sad situation that doesn't sit well with this endowment member and concealed carry instructor.
It's SHALL issue. I just finished reading the bill and the Colorado Shooting Association is also backing the Bill. We would all like a "Vermont" CCW Bill but the liberals and the dems have made too many inroads in Colorado. We can't even get a 'Vermont" in Texas.
Not so occassional anymore. Unlike Rhinos, RINOS are not an endangered species; in fact, they seem to be breeding so fast that Republicans are becoming the endangered species.
Here's why this is a bad – may issue - law. Article XX, Section 20, paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Colorado Constitution state:
The people of each city or town of this state, having a population of two thousand inhabitants as determined by the last preceding census taken under the authority of the United States, the state of Colorado or said city or town, are hereby vested with, and they shall always have, power to make, amend, add to or replace the charter of said city or town, which shall be its organic law and extend to all its local and municipal matters.Such charter and the ordinances made pursuant thereto in such matters shall supersede within the territorial limits and other jurisdiction of said city or town any law of the state in conflict therewith
Any Colorado legislative act that does not specifically address this preemption possibility is consequently at risk. A state concealed carry law that can be tossed by a county like Denver isn't really of value to the preponderance of the population that experiences their greatest jeopardy when away from home, say inside Denver’s borders. To make matters worse, preemption was discussed in the legislature and not addressed in the bill. Legislative intent to not address this issue directly in the bill would be successfully argued before courts as grounds to preempt. Denver may decide not to issue any of their own permits, or recognize permits issued in other jurisdictions. As a Colorado citizen, you may be allowed to apply for a permit. HB1410 fails here.
Say you complete the prescribed steps, pay for your fingerprints (price not established and also not capped,) take your training, and file and pay fees for your application. Any possible reason the sheriff can muster is sufficient for denial. You’ve got a sheriff that doesn’t believe the Second Amendment applies to citizens? I deny the application because I believe this person could be a danger to himself or others. Your redress? Hire a lawyer and appeal under Rule 106. The catch is that the only evidence before the judge is supplied by the sheriff. You cannot respond, question witnesses, or correct erroneous statements. In fact, a Rule 106 hearing is simply to answer if the sheriff exceeded his authority based on the facts before him. You cannot address the facts and few judges will countermand a sheriff's decision. As a Colorado citizen, you may jump through enough hoops and lay out enough cash to overcome a leftie or corrupt (but I repeat myself) sheriff. HB 1410 fails again.
These issues have been beat to death in the ColoradoRKBA eMail discussion group. CSSA is a wholly owned subsidiary of the NRA. In this case both would rather beat their chest and falsely claim a victory than explain how they failed to manage the process and ended up supporting a shoddy bill. Both are guilty of wasting significant political capital and making enemies of their core constituencies.
As of 11:30 this morning, HB1410 was on the agenda of the Senate Judiciary Committee, if time allowed. As of this evening, there is no update on the Senate or House website. There’s a lot to be done if these drones want to finish their session by tomorrow night. I hope and expect that if HB1410 gets out of judiciary it will die in the next committee.
I do have to ask you this though, do you have the votes to get the Bill that you like passed?
I don't think that is true. That is why Smellington Webb is so bent about it. The other bill was better. I would like to see it pass after all the hysterical letters in the papers. I won't aplly anyway, I carry when I want and don't want my name on a list. F'em. Vermont style is not in the cards any time soon.
I won't apply either
Any ordinance in a Colorado home rule jurisdiction supercedes state law; otherwise, state law applies. Webb would have a Denver non-CC ordinance passed in a New York minute. His antics are just posturing, possibly for a larger audience. As one of the three most powerful 'rats in the state, the Colorado Supreme Court is in his pocket, and would buy into the legislative intent argument.
In any case, it appears further machinations over a new CC law is now moot. I just received the following eMail. Note my added emphasis.
I received word a few minutes ago that HB 1410, after days of postponements, was tabled in the Senate Appropriations committee.
This does not "kill" the bill, but one could infer that the negotiations to save the bill by adding home rule amendments failed and that the bill had neither enough support to pass it nor enough opponents to kill it, so it will languish in committee until the Legislature adjourns tomorrow.
However, as a tabled bill, it could spring to life like the Phoenix without notice, so it ain't over til it's over when the gavel falls in the Senate tomorrow night.
Wednesday, May 08, 2002 - 9 a.m. - The state House late Tuesday revived a bill killed earlier in the day that would set a uniform, statewide policy for issuing permits to carry concealed handguns.
Hours after the Senate Appropriations Committee voted 5-5 on House Bill 1410, rejecting a motion to advance the measure to the full Senate, the House amended the measure into a separate bill.
The House then gave preliminary approval to the measure, Senate Bill 229. If approved in a final House vote today, the measure would head back to the Senate.
Sen. Ken Chlouber, R-Leadville, a co-sponsor of the original bill, said if the measure is brought up for a vote in the Senate, he would have more than enough votes to approve it and send it to Gov. Bill Owens, who has indicated support for such a measure.
Earlier Tuesday, Chlouber said the bill had been mischaracterized by opponents who said it would pre-empt local control of concealed weapons.
Sen. Penfield Tate, D-Denver, said the measure would have prevented cities like Denver from controlling where concealed guns could be carried.
"I don't want a positive crime-fighting solution where people are drawing guns at the drop of a hat," said Tate, who voted against the bill.
Sen. Peggy Reeves, D-Fort Collins, who chairs the committee, also voted against it, rejecting pressure to send the bill to floor so the full Senate could decide.
She said she was afraid any restrictions placed on carrying concealed weapons would be stripped by the Republican-controlled House.
The vote marked the fifth time since the 1999 Columbine High School shooting attack that lawmakers have defeated a concealed weapons bill.
Legislators have withdrawn bills that would have simplified the application process for concealed weapons permits and let a state law override local ordinances on gun control after the shootings.
Federal law bans carrying a gun within 1,000 feet of school grounds, except for hunters passing through, people with state-issued concealed carry permits or people using guns in a school program. State law allows local authorities to decide who can carry a concealed weapon.
This year, the bill came closer to passage initially with support from some Senate Democrats, who have blocked previous attempts to expand the current law.
Senate President Stan Matsunaka, D-Loveland, has assigned bills to unfavorable committees in the past where they were killed. However, he supported this year's proposal and said the state needed a uniform gun law.
He assigned it to the Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee, where it passed its first hurdle last month.
Matsunaka said he tried to broker a compromise with fellow Democrats on the Appropriations Committee by offering tougher language prohibiting concealed weapons in universities and schools. He said supporters of the measure did not want that in the bill because current law allows local governments to make their own rules.
Opponents said they are not against a statewide concealed carry law, but insisted any proposal would need tougher standards for their support.
They said the bill would have allowed guns in courts, on playgrounds and in mental health centers where guns should be barred.
On April 20, 1999, two student gunmen killed 13 people before committing suicide at Columbine.
No idea. Someone just posted about an editiorial on the "Freepers form Colorado" page. You might try there.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.