CSSA.org - Colorado State Shooting Association: News

Welcome to the Official Website of the

Colorado State Shooting Association - CSSA

Here are your latest news items . . .

Monday 22 June 2009

BATFE Asking: "May We See Your Guns?"

Friday, June 19, 2009

NRA-ILA has recently received several calls from NRA members in border states who have been visited or called by agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. In some cases, agents have asked to enter these people's homes, and requested serial numbers of all firearms the members possess.

In each case, the agents were making inquiries based on the number of firearms these NRA members had recently bought, and in some cases the agents said they were asking because the members had bought types of guns that are frequently recovered in Mexico.

This kind of questioning may or may not be part of a legitimate criminal investigation. For example, when BATFE traces a gun seized after use in a crime, manufacturers' and dealers' records will normally lead to the first retail buyer of that gun, and investigators will have to interview the buyer to find out how the gun ended up in criminal hands. But in other cases, the questioning may simply be based on information in dealers' records, with agents trying to "profile" potentially suspicious purchases.

On the other hand, some of the agents have used heavy-handed tactics. One reportedly demanded that a gun owner return home early from a business trip, while another threatened to "report" an NRA member as "refusing to cooperate." That kind of behavior is outrageous and unprofessional.

Whether agents act appropriately or not, concerned gun owners should remember that all constitutional protections apply. Answering questions in this type of investigation is generally an individual choice. Most importantly, there are only a few relatively rare exceptions to the general Fourth Amendment requirement that law enforcement officials need a warrant to enter a home without the residents' consent. There is nothing wrong with politely, but firmly, asserting your rights.

If BATFE contacts you and you have any question about how to respond, you may want to consult a local attorney. NRA members may also call NRA-ILA's Office of Legislative Counsel at (703) 267-1161 for further information. Whether contacting a local attorney or NRA, be sure to provide as many details as possible, including the date, time, and location, agent's name, and specific questions asked.

Friday 19 June 2009

NRA Disabled Shooting Has Hunting Laws

NRA Disabled Shooting Services has compiled a listing of all rules and regulations for disabled sportsmen across the country. Visit their website at http://www.nrahq.org/compete/disabled.asp and click on the State Websites for Hunting and Disabilities link. There you will find information about fees, licensing, facilities, and more.

"It's a great tool," said NRA Disabled Shooting Services Manager Vanessa Warner. "Whether you live in Arkansas or California or New Jersey, anyone with a physical disability and an interest in hunting can go to our website and find out what the law is in their state.

NRA Disabled Shooting Services guides more Americans with physical disabilities into hunting and outdoor activities than all other shooting sports organizations in the nation. Since its inception in 1994, NRA’s Disabled Shooting Services Program has enabled thousands of Americans with physical disabilities to enjoy a variety of shooting activities, including competitive events and hunting. For more information, contact Vanessa Warner at 703-267-1495 or send an email to disabled-shooting@nrahq.org.

Tuesday 16 June 2009

Suthers Joins 23 State Attorneys General in Letter to Attorney General Holder: "No Semi-Auto Ban"

On June 11, the top law enforcement officials of nearly half the states signed a letter to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, expressing their opposition to reinstatement of the federal ban on semi-automatic firearms.

"We share the Obama Administration's commitment to reducing illegal drugs and violent crime within the United States. We also share your deep concern about drug cartel violence in Mexico. However, we do not believe that restricting law-abiding Americans' access to certain semi-automatic firearms will resolve any of these problems," the letter said.

The letter notes congressional opposition to bringing back the ban, and calls for increasing enforcement of existing laws.

We encourage NRA members to let these state officials know we appreciate them standing up to the incessant clamor for gun control that is currently coming from anti-gun groups and their media allies.

The 23 state Attorneys General, in alphabetical order, by state, are:

Arkansas – The Honorable Dustin McDaniel
Alabama - The Honorable Troy King
Colorado - The Honorable John W. Suthers
Florida - The Honorable Bill McCollum
Georgia - The Honorable Thurbert E. Baker
Idaho - The Honorable Lawrence G. Wasden
Kansas - The Honorable Steve Six
Kentucky - The Honorable Jack Conway
Louisiana - The Honorable James D. Caldwell
Michigan - The Honorable Mike Cox
Missouri - The Honorable Chris Koster
Montana - The Honorable Steve Bullock
Oklahoma - The Honorable W.A. Edmonson
Nebraska - The Honorable Jon Bruning
Nevada - The Honorable Catherine Cortez Masto
New Hampshire - The Honorable Kelly A. Ayotte
North Dakota - The Honorable Wayne Stenehjem
South Carolina - The Honorable Henry McMaster
South Dakota - The Honorable Lawrence Long
Texas - The Honorable Greg Abbott
Utah - The Honorable Mark L. Shurtleff
Wisconsin – The Honorable J.B. Van Hollen
Wyoming - The Honorable Bruce A. Salzburg

To read the letter in its entirety, hold down your SHIFT key while clicking HERE!

Wednesday 10 June 2009

ATTEMPTS TO REMOVE GUN RIGHTS PROTECTIONS FROM DC REP BILL FAILING

U.S. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) has expressed serious doubt that the Democrat House leadership will be able to pass a bill that would give the District of Columbia a voting representative in the U.S. House, specifically because they have been unable to remove a provision in the bill that would invalidate all DC firearms ownership restrictions that currently make it nearly impossible for DC residents to possess a firearm for self-defense and other legitimate purposes. The firearms rights provision was inserted in the version passed by the Senate earlier this year, but DC leaders made it clear to House Democrat leaders that they wanted that portion excised from the bill. Unfortunately for the anti-gun Democrat leaders of DC and the U.S. House, many of their colleagues don’t think it’s appropriate to grant one right while taking another away. This is an excellent illustration of why it is so very important to keep in contact with your elected representatives in Washington, regardless of party, and continue to let them know how important your Second Amendment rights are to you and all law-abiding Americans.

Thursday 04 June 2009

NRA Appeals Seventh Circuit Ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court

On Wednesday, June 3, the National Rifle Association filed a petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of NRA v. Chicago. The NRA strongly disagrees with the decision issued by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, holding that the Second Amendment does not apply to state and local governments.

“The Seventh Circuit got it wrong. As the Supreme Court said in last year's landmark Heller decision, the Second Amendment is an individual right that ‘belongs to all Americans'. Therefore, we are taking our case to the highest court in the land,” said Chris W. Cox, NRA chief lobbyist. “The Seventh Circuit claimed it was bound by precedent from previous decisions. However, it should have followed the lead of the recent Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Nordyke v. Alameda County, which found that those cases don't prevent the Second Amendment from applying to the states through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

This Seventh Circuit opinion upholds current bans on the possession of handguns in Chicago and Oak Park, Illinois.

“It is wrong that the residents of Chicago and Oak Park continue to have their Second Amendment rights denied,” Cox concluded. “It’s time for the fundamental right of self-defense to be respected by every jurisdiction throughout our country.”

Wednesday 03 June 2009

SEVENTH CIRCUIT REFUSES TO APPLY SECOND AMENDMENT TO STATES/CITIES

For the second time this year, a panel of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, this time the Seventh Circuit (IL, IN, WI) in NRA v. City of Chicago, has held that the individual right to keep and bear arms guaranteed in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is not applicable to the states or local governments. Earlier this year, a panel of the Second Circuit (NY, CT), which included Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor, issued a similar ruling (see posting below). The Ninth Circuit (CA) has ruled that the Second Amendment, like all other rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, does apply to state and local governments (also mentioned in previous posting).

The rulings of the Seventh and Second Circuits are extremely troubling and illustrative of activist courts who selectively apply the law to adhere to a specific political agenda. In it’s ruling, the Seventh Circuit maintained that it was bound by precedent—specifically a decision rendered over a quarter-century ago. The problem with this reasoning is that the case upon which the court relied was decided long before D.C. v. Heller, last year’s U.S. Supreme Court decision that clearly established that the Second Amendment guaranteed an individual right to own a firearm. By the Seventh Circuit’s reasoning, individual states and municipalities can also restrict your freedom of speech and assembly guaranteed under the First Amendment and all other due process rights under the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Amendments as well. And what of the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution? Are we actually to believe that the rights in the U.S. Constitution are only valid in the District of Columbia, where only federal law prevails? It is difficult to understand why intelligent, veteran members of our U.S. Appellate Courts cannot comprehend the most basic of Constitutional principles that have been established for over half a century since the Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education did away with the nonsensical reasoning used by the Second and Seventh Circuits.

Given the split in the U.S. Circuits, it is likely that this matter will be taken up by the Supreme Court in the near future.

Monday 01 June 2009

Clearing Up the Rumors: The Truth About The “Gun Tax Bill”

Friday, May 29, 2009

In the last few weeks, NRA-ILA has received hundreds of e-mails warning us about “SB-2099,” a bill that would supposedly require you to report all your guns on your income tax return every April 15.

Like many rumors, there’s just a grain of truth to this one. Someone’s recycling an old alert, which wasn’t even very accurate when it was new.

There actually was a U.S. Senate bill with that number that would have taxed handguns—nine years ago. It was introduced by anti-gun Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), and it would have included handguns under the National Firearms Act’s tax and registration scheme. This has nothing to do with anyone’s Form 1040, of course.

Fortunately, S. 2099 disappeared without any action by the Senate, back when Bill Clinton was still in the White House. We reported about it back then, just as we report about new anti-gun bills every week. Now, it’s time for gun owners to drop this old distraction and focus on the real threats at hand.

Thursday 28 May 2009

OBAMA SUPREME COURT CHOICE RULED 2ND AMENDMENT DOES NOT APPLY TO THE STATES

U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama’s choice to replace David Souter as Associate Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court, joined a recent Second Circuit opinion, Maloney v. Cuomo, that declared the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms does not apply to the individual states. The most perplexing aspect of this opinion was that it was issued AFTER D.C. v. Heller, where the U.S. Supreme Court affirmatively held that the Second Amendment secured an individual right for all Americans to keep and bear arms. Even a unanimous panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, universally acknowledged as the most liberal in the nation, recently held in Nordyke v. King that the Second Amendment, like all other rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, applies to the states as well as the federal government. There are a myriad of questionable and troubling opinions and decisions handed down by Judge Sotomayor during her career on the bench, but it is clear from her participation in the Maloney v. Cuomo decision that she is hostile to the individual right to keep and bear arms. All shooters, hunters and gun owners are encouraged to call (202-224-3121) and write (use “Write Your Rep” tool at www.NRAILA.org) both of their U.S. Senators and tell them they should not support a Supreme Court candidate that holds the U.S. Constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans in such low regard.

Tuesday 26 May 2009

CONGRESS APPROVES GUNS IN NATIONAL PARKS

On May 20, NRA-backed legislation to restore the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens in national parks and wildlife refuges passed in the U.S. House of Representatives by an overwhelming bipartisan majority of 279-147, including 105 democrats. This was a major repudiation of the gun control community's anti self-defense agenda.

The current Department of Interior (DOI) regulations were amended by the Bush Administration in 2008, allowing law-abiding citizens to defend themselves by carrying a concealed firearm in national parks and wildlife refuges. However, early this year, a federal district court in Washington, D.C. granted anti-gun plaintiffs a preliminary injunction against implementation of the new rule. The NRA has been working for the past several years in the regulatory, legal, and legislative arenas to achieve this policy change.

“It has been an NRA priority to change the old, outdated rule, and we are pleased that Congress passed this critical legislation,” said Chris W. Cox, NRA’s chief lobbyist. “This step brings clarity and uniformity for law-abiding gun owners visiting our national parks and wildlife refuges. NRA will continue to pursue every avenue to defend the American people’s right of self-defense.”

The National Park Service’s recent report revealed that 11 murders, 35 rapes, 61 robberies and 261 aggravated assaults occurred on parklands in 2006. Our parks also contain hidden methamphetamine labs, marijuana fields and illegal drug and illegal alien smuggling routes. In addition to these dangers and potential attacks from human predators, park visitors have to consider attacks from animal predators. Between April and December 2007 there were at least a dozen grizzly bear attacks reported by park visitors. Today, 31 states allow the carrying of firearms in state parks – all with safe and satisfactory results.

This bill provides consistency across our nation’s federal lands and puts an end to the patchwork of regulations that govern different lands managed by different federal agencies. In the past, only Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service lands allowed the carrying of firearms, while National Parks and Wildlife Refuges did not.

In 1982, only six states allowed citizens to carry handguns for self-defense. Currently, 48 states have some process in place for issuing licenses or permits to allow law-abiding citizens to carry firearms for self-defense. The NRA has long held that the regulations needed to be updated to reflect this change.

This move restores the rights of law-abiding gun owners who wish to transport and carry firearms for lawful purposes on most DOI lands and makes federal law consistent with the state law in which these lands are located.

“This common-sense measure, offered by Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK), gives law-abiding gun owners the option of protecting themselves in our federal parks and refuges. We appreciate the efforts and leadership of Senators Max Baucus (D-MT), Mike Crapo (R-ID) and Representative Doc Hastings (R-WA) in ensuring a legislative remedy to amend out-of-date regulations and restore the Second Amendment rights of American gun owners,” concluded Cox.

Monday 18 May 2009

RITTER SHOOTS BLANKS IN REASONS FOR BACKGROUND CHECK BILL VETO

On May 15, Governor Ritter vetoed HB09-1180, which would have permitted valid Colorado Concealed Handgun Permits to validate the background check requirement for firearms purchases from dealers and at gun shows. In the hope of validating his poor decision with Colorado gun owners, Gov. Ritter issued a lengthy statement stating why he did not like the bill. If he had been paying attention to the debate about this bill, which attained a reasonable amount of public/media attention during it’s consideration in the Democrat-dominated General Assembly, he would have known how weak and flimsy his excuses for vetoing this bill really are.

First, Ritter went on to state the myriad of bases for denial of a firearms purchase, all of which on their face disqualify a person from obtaining or maintaining a Concealed Carry Permit. Next, Ritter envisioned a scenario where a person committed a disqualifying offense but used his permit before it could be confiscated/surrendered. This seems reasonable on its face, but it omits a lot of facts and common-sense reality. First, if a person acquired a new criminal charge that disqualified them from firearms purchasing, Colorado law requires that they be issued a restraining order, a provision of which prohibits the person from possessing a firearm. A violation of such a restraining order is a crime carrying hefty punishment. There is nothing that forbids a court from making surrender of a concealed carry permit a condition of any bond or summons, and Colorado courts routinely inquire about and impose such conditions. Finally, there are ZERO documented cases of permit holders unlawfully using their permits once invalidated, whether or not they had been confiscated/surrendered.

The Governor also lamented that law enforcement could not confiscate a concealed carry permit upon an arrest because they would not be able to verify whether the individual had a permit due to the absence of a statewide database. This is pure bunk. First, Governor Ritter, a lawyer and former prosecutor, should know that law enforcement officers are permitted to conduct a full-blown search of a person once they have been lawfully arrested and in doing so should be able to locate a concealed carry permit along with other personal information/articles. Second, county sheriffs, who issue permits, are law enforcement agents (along with their deputies) and their offices are law enforcement agencies. Are we to believe that one law enforcement agency would not be able to contact another agency to verify whether a person has a concealed carry permit? Are our law enforcement agencies now only working bankers’ hours?

The Governor completely misstates the law in his next reason—that sellers cannot confirm the validity of a permit—when he states “…current law places substantial limits on a sheriff’s ability to share information regarding who has a valid…permit.” There is absolutely nothing in the law prohibiting a sheriff from making the fact of whether a person has a concealed carry permit public. We know…we have tried for years to institute such a restriction and both Republican and Democrat governors have refused to support such a measure.

The Governor then speculates that people can produce fake Concealed Carry permits. It is true that anything is possible, but this is extremely unlikely. First, it has never happened in Colorado…ever. Second, making and using a fake permit to obtain a firearm encompass criminal activity far more serious—and carrying far greater punishment—than trying to illegally purchase a firearm.

The final reason stated by the Governor is the most outrageous of all. He cites the fact that one of the guns used at Columbine was a “straw” purchase at a gun show and that a background check would have prevented that purchase. This is a complete falsehood that Ritter and other proponents of Amendment 22 repeatedly told to get the measure passed. Background checks do not prevent straw purchases. The truth is that the person who purchased the firearm in question for Harris and Klebold had absolutely no criminal history and would have passed any background check—straw purchases had already been illegal for many years.

Despite his attempt at justifying his veto of this common-sense bill that would have saved our state thousands of dollars and saved lawful Colorado gun purchases hours of waiting time, Governor Ritter continues to justify our consistent criticism of his anti-gun background, policies and administration. Here’s the plain math, folks. In his three years as governor, Bill Ritter has received two bills that restricted the rights of law-abiding Colorado gun owners. He signed both without reservation. He has received one bill that actually would have eased unnecessary and redundant restrictions on law-abiding Colorado gun owners. He has vetoed that bill. By our score, he is 0-for-3. Colorado gun owners need to remember that score when voting in next year’s election.

Go to page: >>

Main Menu

Raffle Winners!