Tuesday 15 July 2014
Last week, Governor Hickenlooper (D) was spotted having beers and playing pool with President Obama during his visit to Colorado. The two anti-gun chief executives enjoyed a night out on the town, despite the desperate need for leadership in both Colorado and our country.
It’s no surprise that Governor Hickenlooper and President Obama keep such a close connection. During the anti-gun free-for-all last year led by misguided state legislators in Denver, Vice President Joe Biden and the current administration had a direct line to the state Capitol in an effort to push through their rights-infringing agenda. Hickenlooper has made it abundantly clear that keeping close ties with fellow anti-gun politicians, such as former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, outweighs his interest in protecting the rights of law-abiding sportsmen and gun owners in Colorado.
In fact, Michael Bloomberg recently reiterated his support for “universal” background checks in an interview with Rolling Stone magazine, a policy that even the U.S. Department of Justice has said will not work without requiring gun registration. Despite the fact Bloomberg and Hickenlooper’s out-of-touch policies are what helped remove two state Senators in a historic recall election, Bloomberg downplays their defeats, saying they were districts in "parts of Colorado where I don't think there's roads. It's as rural as you can get." To be clear, these recall districts are just outside of metro Denver and have plenty of roads, roads that helped enable voters to drive to the polls when these anti-gun legislators were ousted last September.
The 2015 legislative session will be here before we know it, which means that this election cycle is absolutely critical to defend your rights. Hickenlooper, Obama and Bloomberg want nothing more than to completely eradicate your Second Amendment rights. They ignore solutions that would address violent crime and simply go after sportsmen and gun owners. The fight in Colorado to protect and restore your Right to Keep and Bear Arms is one your NRA takes very seriously. We encourage you to pay close attention in the coming months and help to repeal those draconian gun laws next year.
webmasteronTuesday 15 July 2014 - 12:16:41
Sunday 06 July 2014
Recent articles in Colorado newspapers have discussed the subject of shooting restrictions in the Colorado Front Range National Forests. Shooters have been contending with this issue for some time, with many frequented shooting locations being closed by the feds for one reason or another. The latest, and broadest, concern deals with the increasing habitation and populations in and around National Forests. Many may not know, but much of our Front Range National Forest land either encompasses or borders residential areas. Wildfires in recent years, and the residential damage done by them, illustrates this increasing land-use conflict. Complaints from residents, whether part-time or full-time, about shooting near their property have caused the Forest Service to seriously consider implementing a policy that permits shooting in designated areas only. CSSA has always advocated safe shooting practices, regardless of the setting/environment—home, range or general outdoors. Like most shooting organizations, CSSA has continuously supported efforts to create dedicated shooting areas on public lands so everyone who wishes can have a safe, enjoyable place to shoot. As such, we agree that designated shooting areas with well-designed and developed facilities on National Forest land would be a substantial step in alleviating problems caused by residential encroachment in/near National Forests.
However, CSSA vehemently OPPOSES the closing of ANY National Forest lands to responsible shooting UNLESS and UNTIL adequate and substantial designated shooting ranges are constructed and OPEN FOR BUSINESS. For too long we have seen federal hostility to gun possession/use on public federal lands and bogus/fallacious excuses to justify shooting restrictions, and we will resist any attempt to use the residential encroachment issue as another excuse to ban shooters from their rightful use/enjoyment of the National Forests. National lands belong to the PEOPLE, not the government, and subversive political maneuvering/posturing to advance a radical, anti-gun agenda will never be acceptable. Call and write your U.S. public servants today and tell them NO federal lands should be closed to shooting without FIRST providing adequate and substantial facilities/opportunities for safe shooting activities on federal public lands. Contact information may be found at the NRA-ILA website www.nraila.org. CLICK HERE for a link to one of the articles on the subject.
webmasteronSunday 06 July 2014 - 12:16:41
Thursday 26 June 2014
This afternoon, the United States Federal Court for the District of Colorado issued its decision in Colo. Outfitters Ass'n et al. v. Hickenlooper, of which CSSA was a plaintiff, which challenged the magazine ban and universal background check laws. The court ruled in favor of the state on both issues and also denied the disabled plaintiffs' claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act as well. To summarize, the court found that both laws affect the Second Amendment rights of Colorado citizens and some of the collective plaintiffs, but that neither law imposed an infringement significant enough on that right to rise to the level of a Constitutional violation. WRT the magazine restriction, the court ruled that such a restriction did not prevent individuals from using firearms in defense of self or others. WRT to the background check mandate, the court ruled that it was not overly-burdensome to require background checks for all firearm transfers, including temporary loans, given the long-standing and entrenched requirement for checks on retail sales.
This ruling is disappointing on many levels. It ignores or gives short-shrift to many of the arguments of the plaintiffs, and seemingly misunderstands those that are addressed. The significance of the Second Amendment as a core portion of the Bill of Rights and its importance has virtually no reference in the decision. It is anticipated that an appeal will be made to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals...notice of appeal is due in one month. Most noteworthy was the court’s focus on the important government interest at hand while ignoring the complete absence of support for same in the legislative record. It must be noted here the excellent and tireless efforts of the legal team assembled to make this court challenge, and despite today's ruling they deserve, as Thomas Paine said, the regard and thanks of man and woman.
It is now up to the freedom-loving Colorado citizens, whether or not they are shooters, hunters or gun owners, to make things right at the polls. Voters threw out three state senators because of their stubborn disregard for the people and their desires. It's time to throw out each and every legislator that voted for these laws, and the governor that signed them. We can do it...we've already demonstrated that we can. It is time to unite under the banner of We the People and finish the work that was started last summer--it's time to CLEAN HOUSE and RE-INSTALL LIBERTY! CSSA will continue to Stand and Fight—JOIN US!
webmasteronThursday 26 June 2014 - 12:16:41
Wednesday 25 June 2014
From the National Shooting Sports Foundation:
The U.S. Supreme Court ruling in a case involving the arrest of a Virginia man who purchased a firearm for a relative from Pennsylvania that was upheld as an illegal "straw purchase" under federal law does not make it illegal for a consumer to purchase firearms as gift. However, because the ruling has caused confusion, NSSF has asked ATF to provide clarification. As soon as ATF responds, NSSF will provide the information to all FFLs. As expressly noted in the instructions on Form 4473 for Section 11.a. Actual Transferee/Buyer: For purposes of this form, you are the actual transferee/buyer if you are purchasing the firearm for yourself or otherwise acquiring the firearm for yourself (e.g., redeeming the firearm from pawn/retrieving it from consignment, firearm raffle winner). You are also the actual transferee/buyer if you are legitimately purchasing the firearm as a gift for a third party. Read the NSSF retailer communication.
CSSA notes that, in order to be a gift, the subsequent transfer to the gift recipient must be without compensation or remuneration. That was the essence of the case decided by the Supreme Court—the statement that the buyer was the actual purchaser of the firearm was false, because he was actually “middling “ the gun for another person who reimbursed the buyer for the purchase price.
webmasteronWednesday 25 June 2014 - 12:16:41
Wednesday 18 June 2014
Last Friday, June 13, Governor John Hickenlooper (D) spoke to a gathering of Colorado sheriffs in Aspen during the bi-annual County Sheriffs of Colorado Conference.
During this conference, Hickenlooper admitted that he and his office failed to meet with the sheriffs when they showed up en masse at the state Capitol in Denver and also admitted that he and his office failed to do their homework on the impact and importance of background check legislation that now unnecessarily affects hundreds of thousands of law-abiding citizens across the Centennial State.
Hickenlooper stated that “[t]here were a thousand things going on and other issues we were dealing with, I guess I didn’t get it.” Hickenlooper went on to say that by the time he was aware of the criticism against the background check legislation, he had already signed it.
This seems not only unfortunate but also highly unlikely. Thousands of freedom-loving supporters of the Second Amendment showed up to express opposition to this bill and others like it. Individuals across the state made their presence and opposition known on a daily basis throughout the 2013 legislative session.
When pressed with further questions by the sheriffs, Hickenlooper interrupted the audience by saying “What more apology do you want? What the f---? I apologize!” Hickenlooper, along with the other anti-gun extremists in Denver who voted in favor of passing the most egregious anti-gun legislation in Colorado history, continue to show just how out of touch they are with the state and the people who live here.
This failed attempt at redemption with the sheriffs by Hickenlooper is just one more example of why focusing on the polls this November is so critically important. The outcome of this fall’s elections will directly impact what happens during the legislative session next year.
Please stay tuned to www.nraila.org and your email inbox for further updates.
webmasteronWednesday 18 June 2014 - 12:16:41
Sunday 18 May 2014
Last year’s universal firearms transfer restriction law, HB13-1229, has been an abysmal failure. CBI’s own statistics have shown that is not working, as fewer individual private transfer checks were performed AFTER the law went into effect. The latest proof of how harmful this law really is to law abiding gun-owners is detailed below, in a report from NRA-ILA:
Last year, the state legislature passed the most egregious gun control laws in Colorado history. These laws were railroaded through the legislative process by anti-gun legislators in Denver bent on imposing their own personal agenda on law-abiding citizens.
Almost a year after its passage and enactment, the absurdity of the private transfer background check law is yet again at the forefront of media scrutiny.
Sara Warren was in a serious automobile accident on March 28, 2014, and had to be transported to a local hospital by ambulance for her injuries. Local police authorities seized her legally possessed firearm for “safekeeping overnight” during her stay at the hospital.
Almost two months have passed since this “overnight” seizure took place and Mrs. Warren has yet to have her firearm returned to her. All of this due to the new private transfer or “universal background check” law that was enacted last year.
This story is just another example of the anti-gun extremists in Denver fudging the numbers to spin a fictional tale of unsubstantiated claims, so they can continue to impose their minority ideals on a majority of Coloradoans.
Stories, such as this, continue to highlight the absolutely critical importance of this year’s elections. Please stay tuned to www.nraila.org and your e-mail inbox for further updates
CSSA is a chief combatant in the legal challenge to this law, as well as the magazine ban enacted last year, but the best way to ensure that these egregious injustices do not continue is to elect a governor and legislature that will repeal these horrific laws. Register to vote, and make sure your fellow shooters and gun owners are registered as well. Then watch for the candidate grades and endorsements issued by CSSA and NRA before the election this fall.
webmasteronSunday 18 May 2014 - 12:16:41
Saturday 17 May 2014
SAFE needs YOU to show your support now!
Help bring this world-class, multi-million dollar firearms education and training center to Colorado just a few minutes north of Denver. There are opposition and anti-gun forces mobilizing now that are trying to block this project and your help is needed.
Please read this article and follow the steps below to send email, leave a voice message AND post your comments in support of SAFE!
SAFE will feature a 64,000 square foot SportsPlex™ structure covering 7 firearms training bays with extensive sound reducing and sound absorption materials including space-age products developed by NASA to create a much more enjoyable shooting and training experience. SAFE will also have 4 outdoor range bays.
Finally, SAFE will also feature an almost 12,000 square foot Education Center with multiple indoor classrooms, a full stocking firearms dealership, pro-shop, onsite gunsmith, retail merchandise area, law enforcement video training simulator, plus a cafe and seating area with dramatic mountain and outdoor training area views.
Here's how you can help right now ...
1) Send a very polite email to the Trustees in the Town of Frederick stating your support for SAFE!
2) Click here to watch Cam on the NRA Cam & Company Show interview Ron Abramson, SAFE Managing Partner, and email the link to the video, AND the email above for the Board of Trustees in Frederick, to everyone you know that supports the Second Amendment and the need for quality firearms training.
Please send your polite emails stating your support for SAFE in Frederick, CO right now!
For more information, visit the SAFE website:
webmasteronSaturday 17 May 2014 - 12:16:41
Saturday 29 March 2014
Since 1996, the so-called "Lautenberg Amendment" (named for its sponsor, Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ)), has banned the acquisition or possession of firearms by anyone convicted of a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence." Applicable crimes are limited to those that have "as an element, the use or attempted use of physical force, or the threatened use of a deadly weapon" and that are committed by persons with a specified relationship to the victim, such as a current or former spouse or a parent. The prohibition applies no matter when the offense occurred and can include convictions that predated the 1996 law.
Over the years, federal appellate courts have differed on what degree of "physical force" is necessary to trigger the disability. Questions have also arisen over whether a conviction could count if it occurred under a statute that covered both acts requiring force and those that did not (such as simply scaring the victim). Thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling last Wednesday in United States v. Castleman, one of these questions has now been resolved in a way that gives the federal prohibition its broadest possible reading.
James Alvin Castleman was convicted in Tennessee of "having intentionally or knowingly caused bodily injury" to his child's mother. The statute in question could be violated in three separate ways: (1) intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causing bodily injury to another; (2) intentionally or knowingly causing another reasonably to fear imminent bodily injury; or (3) intentionally or knowingly causing physical contact with another in a manner that a reasonable person would regard as extremely offensive or provocative (whether or not injury resulted). The "injury" requirement of the first offense type was broadly defined to include a cut, abrasion, bruise, burn, disfigurement, physical pain, or temporary impairment of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty. Thus, the statute could be violated with no physical force whatsoever or very minor, non-injurious physical force.
Castleman claimed that his conviction did not trigger the federal disability, because Congress only meant to prohibit those convicted of domestic violence. Thus, he claimed, the only statutes that could count were those that could only be violated by committing violent (or more than nominal) physical force. A statute that could be violated by mere offensive touching (pushing, shoving, poking, grabbing, etc.) should not count.
The Court disagreed and found that as long as the statute required some degree of offensive physical contact for a violation to occur, a conviction under that statute would trigger the federal disability. It did not, however, reach the question of whether broad statutes like Tennessee's, which could be violated with or without force, would always be counted. This was because Castleman had admitted he was convicted under the most demanding test of the statute, that requiring actual physical injury. The Court reasoned that any injury, no matter how slight, must require the use of at least some "physical force."
The Court provided a number of rationales for its holding. It reasoned, for example, that that "domestic violence" is not violence in the commonly understood sense but in the broader sense of an accumulation of acts over time that established one person's control over another. Thus, it could include not just injurious abuse but more minor physical acts including hitting, slapping, shoving, pushing, grabbing, pinching, scratching, shaking, twisting, spitting, or restraining. The Court acknowledged that "most physical assaults committed against women and men by intimates are minor …." Nevertheless, it also opined, "If a seemingly minor act like this draws the attention of authorities and leads to a successful prosecution for a misdemeanor offense, it does not offend common sense or the English language to characterize the resulting conviction as a 'misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.'"
Importantly, the Court did not resolve the important question of whether so broad an application of the statute (and the resulting lifetime loss of the right to acquire and possess firearms) would violate the Second Amendment. Essentially, it ruled that question was not properly before it and would have to be resolved in another case.
Besides applying to a broader range of convictions in the future, this ruling also means that prior convictions will become subject to the new rule in those jurisdictions that had embraced a narrower reading of the federal statute. Federally licensed dealers are thus being notified that some customers who had formerly passed NICS checks may now be subject to denials.
The Court's interpretation of the statute is final and authoritative. It can now only be changed by Congress. Whether that will happen or whether a Second Amendment challenge will be brought to a broad application of the statute are questions only time will tell.
CSSA note: Colorado has several misdemeanor criminal offenses that prohibit unlawful touching or minimal physical injury (as little as causing pain), including harassment and third-degree assault.
webmasteronSaturday 29 March 2014 - 12:16:41
Wednesday 19 March 2014
Please call your U.S. Senators and Ask Them to Oppose the Confirmation of Vivek Murthy for U.S. Surgeon General
The National Rifle Association strongly opposes the confirmation of Vivek Murthy, as Surgeon General.
Click here to see a recent interview with NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris Cox on Fox News.
The Surgeon General has the important tasks of providing the American public with information to better inform decisions related to their health and directing much of the federal government's public health efforts. In order for these roles to be carried out effectively, the public must trust that the Surgeon General's actions are based on empirical and scientific evidence, rather than political or ideological motives. In this regard, Dr. Murthy's record of political activism in support of radical gun control measures raises significant concerns about his ability to objectively examine issues pertinent to America's 100 million firearm owners and the likelihood he would use the office of Surgeon General to further his preexisting campaign against gun ownership.
Vivek Murthy agrees with President Barack Obama, Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, and Senator Dianne Feinstein's radical anti-gun agenda. Dr. Murthy advocated on many occasions for the banning of lawfully-owned firearms and even worse - using tax dollars for the federal government to buy them back. Furthermore, Dr. Murthy proposed stripping the vital privacy protections for gun owners in the "Affordable Care Act" so that doctors and insurance companies can keep information on lawful gun owners. It's clear that Dr. Murthy would be a prescription for disaster for America's law-abiding gun owners.
Please call your U.S. Senators at (202) 224-3121 and let them know that you oppose the confirmation of Vivek Murthy for Surgeon General.
webmasteronWednesday 19 March 2014 - 12:16:41
Wednesday 12 March 2014
This week, the Colorado House of Representatives is expected to consider House Bill 1253 (CLICK) for a second time. HB 1253, introduced by state Representative Elizabeth McCann (D-8), is a potentially volatile piece of mental health reform legislation that could result in additional gun owners losing their fundamental, constitutional rights. HB 1253 seeks to remove the option of a jury trial in certain civil commitment and substance abuse adjudications. Removal of this route could lead to a loss of firearms rights for many individuals.
In addition, this bill seeks to alter the current definitions and reporting processes of individuals committed for mental health or substance abuse issues. HB 1253 would expand the instances when those individuals must be submitted to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) to include emergency holds. Further, it removes the requirement that danger to self or others be imminent in order to issue a mental health hold. The expansive provisions in HB 1253 would increase the number of individuals submitted to NICS and therefore prohibited from purchasing or possessing a firearm.
Expansion of instances when a mental health hold can be issued and removal of the option to choose a jury trial in civil commitment and substance abuse adjudications will only work to harm individuals in Colorado. This is a thinly veiled attempt to infringe on your Second Amendment rights. Please contact your state Representative NOW and urge him or her to OPPOSE HB 1253.
Contact information for members of the Colorado House of Representatives can be found by CLICKING HERE.
webmasteronWednesday 12 March 2014 - 12:16:41