Boulder Archives - Rally for our Rights

4 Boulder County Cities Poised To Pass ALL The Gun Control

Posted on June 6, 2022June 7, 2022 by Lesley Hollywood

The Colorado cities of Superior, Louisville, Lafayette, and Boulder all have a list of gun control on their City Council agendas for Tuesday, June 7th.

This coordinated effort is being pushed by assistant to Boulder City Council Taylor Reimann in conjunction with out-of-state gun control groups Gifford’s and Everytown For Gun Safety.

READ HERE the draft ordinances crafted specifically for Colorado back in Sept 2021.

There are a total of 6 ordinances being voted on by each town. Those are:

Banning the sale and possession of “assault weapons,” large-capacity magazines and rapid-fire trigger activators, raising the minimum age to purchase any firearm to 21.
Prohibiting the concealed carrying of firearms in “sensitive” public places including: any area owned by or controlled by the town, public parks or open space, protests, anywhere that serves alcohol, hospitals and other medical or mental health facilities, church, synagogue, mosque, temple or other place of worship, stadium or arena, courthouse, banks, theaters, child care centers or preschools, and more.
Prohibiting the open carrying of firearms in all public places.
Requiring all firearm dealers to post “warning” signs at all locations where firearms transfers take place.
Requiring a 10 day waiting period prior to the sale of firearms.
Regulating the manufacture and possession of non-serialized firearms or so-called “ghost guns”.

Here’s how to get involved. If you cannot attend a meeting, please take a moment to email them using the easy links below:

Boulder – 6pm – VIRTUAL ONLY
Agenda and sign up to speak: https://bouldercolorado.gov/events/city-council-meeting-19
WATCH the meeting
CLICK HERE to email all Boulder council members at once

Louisville – 6pm – IN-PERSON at City Hall, 749 Main Street or VIRTUAL
Agenda and sign up to speak: https://www.louisvilleco.gov/local-government/government/city-council/city-council-meeting-agendas-packets-minutes
WATCH the meeting
CLICK HERE to email all Louisville council members at once

Superior – 8pm – VIRTUAL ONLY
Agenda and instructions to request to speak: https://www.superiorcolorado.gov/Home/Components/Calendar/Event/5819/19
WATCH the meeting
CLICK HERE to email all Superior council members at once

Lafayette – 5:30pm – IN-PERSON at City Hall Council Chambers 1290 S. Public Road or VIRTUAL
Agenda and instructions to sign up to speak: https://www.lafayetteco.gov/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/5281
WATCH the meeting
CLICK HERE to email all Lafayette council members at once

In addition to all this madness, a Colorado Open Records Act (CORA) request has revealed there are dozens more cities on the Colorado front range that may be part of this effort. The CORA exposed how council members were skirting Sunshine Laws in Colorado that require meetings with more than two officials from a governing body to be open to the public. We have more info about this coming out soon, but in the meantime read up on what we know at Complete Colorado.

Donate & Get A Sticker!

Help us fight the radical gun control extremists down at the capitol this legislative session by making a donation of $5 or more and get your choice of one of these weatherproof, scratch resistant stickers that are made in the U.S.A.

CLICK HERE to get yours!

*Contributions are not tax deductible.

SPEAK UP! OPPOSE Colorado Gun Control So Extreme It Could Ban Firearm Possession In YOUR Community

Posted on May 23, 2021June 8, 2021 by Lesley Hollywood

Take Action NOW!

Please consider providing public comment/testimony during the hearings! This can be done either in person or remotely. If you are unable to provide public comment (and even if you do) please contact each member of the committees and ask they vote NO on these bills!

SB21-256 Local Regulation Of Firearms

• Repeals Colorado’s 2003 Firearm Preemption Law and replaces it with language that allows localities and municipalities to create their own firearm laws as long as they are not LESS restrictive than state law.
• This bill would allow for any county or municipality to ban the possession, sale, or transfer of a firearm or firearm accessory within their jurisdiction; and would allow any county, municipality, special district, or college campus to ban concealed carry.

House State, Civic, Military & Veterans Affairs Committee Hearing on SB21-256
Monday, May 24
1:30pm
(Note: Four bills will be heard in this same committee. SB21-256 is the fourth bill to be heard.)

Testify in person:
Colorado State Capitol
LSB-A
Denver, CO

Testify via WebEx:
Click here to register
(If you need instructions on how to register via WebEx or what to expect testifying in person, please visit our Legislative Watch page: www.rallyforourrights.com/legislative-watch)

Passed Senate Chamber on May 18, 2021.

HB21-1298 Expand Firearm Background Check Requirements

• Adds 11 misdemeanors to the list of background check disqualifiers.
• Removes the option for FFLs to transfer a firearm to new owner if background check is formally delayed for more than 3 days.
• Extends the time agencies have to review a background check denial from 30 days to 60 days, and allows for indefinite denial without disposition in certain instances.

Senate State, Veterans, & Military Affairs Committee Hearing on HB21-1298
Tuesday, May 25
2:00pm
(Note: Eight bills will be heard in this same committee. HB21-1298 is the fifth bill to be heard.)

Testify in person:
Colorado State Capitol
Old Supreme Court
Denver, CO

Passed House Chamber on May 17, 2021.

HB21-1299 Office Of Gun Violence Prevention

• Creates a new entity within Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDHPE) called the Office of Gun Violence Prevention.
• This office will be asked to “…increase the awareness of, and educate the general public about, state and federal laws and existing resources relating to gun-violence prevention.” That includes how to safely store guns, how to report a lost or stolen weapon, how to access mental health care and how to utilize Colorado’s Red Flag Law. They will also be tasked with so-called “evidence based” data collection.
• The office will also track and publish what local firearm laws are in place across the state, as they assume SB21-256 will pass (read below about this atrocious bill). They are requesting $3 million dollars for fiscal year 2021-2022.

Senate State, Veterans, & Military Affairs Committee Hearing on HB21-1298
Tuesday, May 25
2:00pm
(Note: Eight bills will be heard in this same committee. HB21-1299 is the seventh bill to be heard.)

Testify in person:
Colorado State Capitol
Old Supreme Court
Denver, CO

Passed House Chamber on May 17, 2021.

Your donations are needed to help keep Rally for our Rights going and growing! This year is already looking to be brutal for gun owners and will be keeping us busy. Make a contribution today!

Donate here or
click the donate button below:
www.rallyforourrights.com/donate

* Contributions are not tax deductible

Concealed Carry Banned Under Proposed Colorado Control Gun Law

Posted on May 10, 2021May 12, 2021 by Lesley Hollywood

In light of the tragic mass shooting at a King Soopers in Boulder, the gun control extremists in the Colorado legislature are taking aim at concealed carry. It should be noted the Boulder shooter did not have a concealed carry permit, nor did he attempt to conceal his firearm.

SB21-256 Local Regulation of Firearms essentially repeals and replaces the 2003 firearm preemption law in Colorado Revised Statutes which prohibits local governments from creating firearm laws that would differ from state law. This 2003 law is important because if each of our 64 counties and 271 municipalities had different laws regulating firearms, things could get pretty messy for gun owners who have every intention of obeying the law.

This bill would replace the preemption language with new language stating firearm laws are, in fact, a matter of local concern, and local governments can enact their own laws but ONLY if they are more strict than state law – otherwise those Second Amendment Sanctuary Counties would grow some teeth.

In the day and age of criminal justice reform being such an important and versed issue, it would seem most plausible they wouldn’t want to make it harder for people to obey the law. That obviously doesn’t apply to gun owners.

SB21-256 changes current preemption language to state a “…local government may enact an ordinance, regulation, or other law governing or prohibiting the sale, purchase, transfer or possession of a firearm, ammunition, or firearm component or accessory that a person may lawfully sell, purchase, transfer, or possess under state or federal law.”

This means any of those 64 counties or 271 towns and cities would be able to restrict firearms to whatever level their governing body should choose. Undoubtedly Second Amendment court challenges would follow…

The bill then goes on to add “…a local government, including a special district, or the governing board of an institution of higher education many enact an ordinance, resolution, rule, or other regulation that prohibits a permittee from carrying a concealed handgun in a building or specific area within the local government’s or governing board’s jurisdiction.”

This language allows for any of those 64 counties, 271 towns and cities, 2,800 special districts, or 64 colleges to ban concealed carry whenever and wherever they’d like within their jurisdiction. Does this mean just parks and government buildings? Or downtown areas? Or can they choose to ban concealed carry within their entire city or county limits? From the way the bill is currently worded, they’d be able to ban it at city or county limits. And have no doubt, many cities would love to enact a conceal carry ban and strip their citizens of the right to self defense.

So, quick recap: After a madman murdered 10 people in a grocery store, in a state where violent crime is skyrocketing, the solution lawmakers have come up with to prevent tragedies like this from happening again is to strip responsible gun owners, and those worried for their own self protection, of their right to self defense in their own towns, counties, and even on college campuses where 1 in 5 women are sexually assaulted.

Many may think this bill is a knee-jerk reaction, but have no doubt, it is an intentional swipe at the firearm preemption law that has been in place since 2003. Ten days before the Boulder King Soopers shooting, a Boulder County District Judge overturned a City of Boulder ordinance banning so-called “assault weapons” along with magazines over 10 rounds. Virtue signaling gun grabbers like to use this example as to why the preemption law needs repealed. What they fail to mention is Boulder’s own set of gun laws would have done nothing to stop the shooter. He didn’t live in Boulder. He didn’t purchase his firearm in Boulder. The heinous acts he committed are already highly illegal and would have carried a maximum sentence of the death penalty had Colorado not repealed it in 2020. The only other crime committed by the Boulder shooter that would have been covered under Boulder’s own specific town laws is the open carrying of a long gun outside of the vehicle in the King Soopers parking lot – before he began his massacre. That part of the Boulder ordinance was NOT overturned by the judge, yet the Boulder DA has not added it to his list of charges. The Boulder DA also has not added the crime of lying on ATF Form 4473 which the shooter did when he answered yes to question 21(c): if he’d ever been convicted of a crime that carried a maximum penalty of 12 months or more in prison even if he received a lesser sentence including probation. In 2017 he was convicted of Third Degree Assault which is a Misdemeanor 1 carrying a maximum sentence of 18 months in prison. Lying on ATF Form 4473 is a felony punishable by up to 5 years in prison.

This bill passed the Senate State, Veterans and Military Affairs committee on Tuesday, May 11th. It has not yet been scheduled for Second Reading in the Senate.

Please email your State Senators and ask they vote NO on this atrocious bill!

Not sure who your State Senator is? Look them up HERE.
If you know who your State Senator is but need contact info, find all their info on our Elected Officials page HERE.

Follow all Colorado gun related legislation at our Legislative Watch page HERE.

HAVE YOU VISITED OUR STORE LATELY?

Questions Everyone Should Be Asking About Red Flag Emergency Risk Protection ERPO Gun Laws : Rally for our Rights Colorado

Fast Tracked Gun Control Bills In Colorado Make FIVE For 2021 Legislative Session

Posted on May 3, 2021May 18, 2021 by Lesley Hollywood

Want the Tl;dr version of the three gun control bills Colorado just introduced? Scroll down to below the graph.

Colorado tends to fly fairly under the radar when it comes to national chatter about gun control. A very libertarian state where guns and weed are common topics of conversation, the last time a major push for gun control took place was in 2013 when expanded background checks and a ban on so-called high capacity magazines passed. That legislation triggered a recall effort that unseated three Democrat legislators and flipped the majority to Republican control in the 2014 general election.

Since that time the only major piece of gun control legislation that has ended up with the governor’s signature was the passage of a Red Flag Extreme Risk Protection Order law in 2019 after similar legislation failed the year prior. The 2020 legislative session was a total meltdown due to COVID and the blessing out of that was gun control was dropped from the agenda. Enter 2021 and the gun control extremists are more motivated than ever to pass more ineffective laws that will do nothing to reduce firearm crime and suicide. Note the chart below shows exactly how the laws Colorado has already passed have had the exact opposite effect than promised. The longer they continue to misdiagnose and mistreat this problem, the longer it will persist.

Already in the first 60 days of the 2021 legislative session, the governor has signed two pieces of gun control: SB21-078 Mandatory Reporting of Lost and Stolen Firearms, and HB21-1106 Mandatory Safe Storage of Firearms. Both of these bills are so poorly written it’s glaringly obvious no one who knows anything about guns even helped to write them as they are full of loopholes. And now, on the tail of the Boulder King Soopers shooting, virtue signaling Democrats have wasted no time exploiting the horrific murders of innocent people by pushing for new laws that they even admit would have done nothing to stop the shooter, but without a doubt make sure it’s harder for law abiding citizens to protect themselves from the evil we continue to face.

Three Gun Control Bills Introduced

On April 29, 2021 a package of three gun control bills were introduced. These bills are being fast tracked, going from committee to debate in the House Chamber on the same day. Ideas so “good” they have to try to hide to proceedings from the public. Here’s the run down of each:

HB21-1298 Expand Firearm Transfer Background Check Requirements

The 2013 background check law already extended the current federal background check requirements to private sales and transfers as well as expanded prohibition to include mental health disqualifiers, dating partners who commit domestic violence, and more. To purchase a firearm in Colorado, the buyer must pass both a NICS background check and a CBI background check.

This new bill would expand upon that even more to include what they consider “Violent Misdemeanors”, with those convicted becoming a prohibited person for 5 years. Of course they always have to go big and include simple harassment (say you caught someone sleeping with your wife and you yelled at them – that’s harassment in Colorado) with more heinous crimes like sexual assault and child abuse. But here’s the kicker – of the list of new 11 qualifying misdemeanors, all but two are a Misdemeanor 3. Why does this matter? Because when form 4473 is completed to submit to a background check, question 21(c) is asked: “Have you ever been convicted in any court, including a military court, of a felony, or any other crime for which the judge could have imprisoned you for more than one year, even if you received a shorter sentence including probation?” A yes answer on this question is an automatic disqualifier. And both Misdemeanors 1 and 2 carry a maximum penalty of 12 month or more in prison. Misdemeanor 3 carries a maximum of 6 months.

For all my researchers, here are the crimes they are adding, followed by their Colorado Revised Statute (C.R.S.) number, and what level misdemeanor they fall into:

• Assault Third Degree: 18-3-204 – M1
• Menacing: 18-3-206 – M3
• Sexual Assault: 18-3-402 (1)(e) – M1
• Child Abuse: 18-6-401 – M1 7a(V); M2 7b(VI); M2 7b(I); M3 7b(II)
• Violation of Protection Order: 18-6-803.5 – M2 with no prior violations, M1 with prior violations
• Crime Against At Risk Person: 18-6.5-103 – M1
• Harassment: 18-9-111 (1)(a) – M3; M1 if pursuant to 18-9-121(5)(a)&(b)
• Bias Motivated Crime: 18-9-121 – M1
• Cruelty to Animals: 18-9-202 – M1
• Possession of an Illegal Weapon: 18-12-102 – M1
• Unlawfully providing a firearm, other than a handgun, to a juvenile: 18-12-108.7 (3) – M1

This is the only law they claim would have stopped the Boulder shooter, as he bought his firearm legally several days before committing his massacre AND two years prior had been convicted of Third Degree Assault, a M1 that carried up to 18 months in prison. But as I previously mentioned…wouldn’t he already be prohibited based on question 21(c) of his 4473? Why isn’t the Boulder County DA charging him with lying on that form? But it also points to another issue that is never addressed – these background checks systems are only as good as the data put into them.

HB21-1298 also closes what the gun control extremists like to call “The Charleston Loophole”. This so-called loophole allows a FFL to transfer the firearm to the new owner without a background check if the background check is formally delayed for more than 3 days. First, they love to call it the Charleston Loophole so they can exploit more tragedy and ignore the fact the police and FBI knew the Charleston Church Shooter had obtained a firearm when he was prohibited and they did absolutely nothing about it. 6 months later it was used to take lives of innocent people. But giving those same agencies more authority is supposed to fix the problem. And second, FFLs in Colorado don’t transfer guns to those who don’t pass background checks. Call around and ask. There is no shortage of customers who will pass background checks to buy that gun. Additionally, this bill extends the time agencies have to review a background check denial from 30 days to 60 days, and allows for indefinite denial without disposition in certain instances.

PLEASE CONTACT YOUR STATE HOUSE REPS AND TELL THEM TO VOTE NO ON THIS BILL!

If you would like to go a step further and email every member of the Colorado House of Representatives (like the gun grabbers do), we’ve divided them up so you can easily send three emails by clicking the links below and connect with every House Rep across the state. Remember, this includes every State House Rep and some are on your side, but they still need to hear from you so they know how strong the opposition is to these bills!

OPPOSE HB21-1298: (even more) Expanded Firearm Background Checks

CLICK HERE TO EMAIL LAWMAKER GROUP #1
CLICK HERE TO EMAIL LAWMAKER GROUP #2
CLICK HERE TO EMAIL LAWMAKER GROUP #3

HB21-1299 Office Of Gun Violence Prevention

This bill creates a new entity within Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDHPE) called the Office of Gun Violence Prevention. Yes, these are the same unelected bureaucrats who have handled COVID in Colorado for the past year. This new entity would have a director and at minimum two full time employees. The responsibilities of this office will be to “…increase the awareness of, and educate the general public about, state and federal laws and existing resources relating to gun-violence prevention.” That includes how to safely store guns, how to report a lost or stolen weapon, how to access mental health care and how to utilize Colorado’s Red Flag Law. This would be done via campaigns using television, radio, internet, direct mail, etc. The office will also be tasked with collecting “evidence based” gun violence data and providing grants to those wishing to promote gun safety in the community – but again, only those with “evidence based” solutions. The office will also track and publish what local firearm laws are in place across the state, as they assume SB21-256 will pass (read below about this atrocious bill). They are requesting $3 million dollars for fiscal year 2021-2022.

PLEASE CONTACT YOUR STATE HOUSE REPS AND TELL THEM TO VOTE NO ON THIS BILL!

OPPOSE HB21-1299: Creates Office of Gun Violence

CLICK HERE TO EMAIL LAWMAKER GROUP #1
CLICK HERE TO EMAIL LAWMAKER GROUP #2
CLICK HERE TO EMAIL LAWMAKER GROUP #3

A few other states have similar offices of gun violence prevention. Three of the most prominent such efforts are New York City Office of Gun Violence Prevention, Marylanders to Prevent Gun Violence, and Illinois Gun Violence Prevention Coalition.

What have been the results?

New York City: Since the creation of the New York City Office of Gun Violence Prevention, the city has gone from being one of the safest urban centers in the country to a return of the Death Wish years. In 2020, shootings increased 97% percent and homicides 44%

Maryland: Baltimore remains one of the most dangerous cities in America. In 2020, compared to Denver which documented 60 gun homicides, Baltimore recorded 298. More people in Baltimore were murdered with guns than in the entire state of Colorado.

Illinois: In 2020, Chicago documented 719 gun homicides, an increase of 55% from 2019. Chicago is the murder capital of the US.

SB21-256 Local Regulation Of Firearms

This bill would essentially repeal and replace the Firearm Preemption Law that has been a cornerstone of gun rights here in Colorado since 2003. It’s what got Boulder’s assault weapon ban overturned – although even the sponsors of this bill have said their ban wouldn’t have stopped the Boulder shooter (and newsflash for them, bans don’t stop murderers). Currently localities and municipalities are barred from creating their own gun laws that are more strict (or less strict) than what is current state law. This is because it is unreasonable to expect firearm owners to know hundreds of different laws as they travel over imaginary county and city lines across Colorado, and anything otherwise would create a whole new class of innocent criminals.

SB21-256 repeals that and replaces it with language allowing localities and municipalities to create their own gun laws BUT only if they are more strict than current state law, “…local government may enact an ordinance, regulation, or other law governing or prohibiting the sale, purchase, transfer or possession of a firearm, ammunition, or firearm component or accessory that a person may lawfully sell, purchase, transfer, or possess under state or federal law.”

It also gives counties, municipalities, special districts and colleges the ability for their governing bodies to prohibit conceal carry, “…a local government, including a special district, or the governing board of an institution of higher education many enact an ordinance, resolution, rule, or other regulation that prohibits a permittee from carrying a concealed handgun in a building or specific area within the local government’s or governing board’s jurisdiction.”

PLEASE CONTACT YOUR STATE HOUSE REPS AND TELL THEM TO VOTE NO ON THIS BILL!

If you would like to go a step further and email every member of the Colorado State Senate (like the gun grabbers do), we’ve provided a link below. By clicking the link below you can connect with every State Senator across the Colorado. Remember, this includes every State Senator and some are on your side, but they still need to hear from you so they know how strong the opposition is to these bills!

OPPOSE SB21-256: Local Regulation of Firearms

CLICK HERE TO EMAIL EVERY STATE SENATOR

Two other bills we were expecting to see seem to have received the ax this year. Those would be an Assault Weapons Ban and Mandatory Waiting Periods. You can follow all Colorado gun bills as they make their way through both the house and senate chambers on our Legislative Watch page.

HAVE YOU VISITED OUR STORE LATELY?

Boulder CO Assault Weapon, Large Capacity Magazine Ban Overturned

Posted on March 14, 2021March 16, 2021 by Lesley Hollywood

Victory in Boulder!

When Boulder, Colorado passed an “assault weapon” and large capacity magazine ban in 2018, gun owners scoffed at the ultra-liberal city’s agenda, unsurprised by the virtue signaling and visible presence of Bloomberg’s astroturf organization Moms Demand Action. Statistically, a person was more likely to be killed by baseball bat than by one of the firearms they were arbitrarily defining as “assault weapons” inside the city limits, those stats being ONE for death by baseball bat to ZERO for death by “assault weapon”. The ordinance also restricted the age of purchase for a long gun to those 21 and over, and banned open carry of their arbitrarily defined assault weapons in the city of Boulder.

What did come as a surprise was that many Boulder residents weren’t okay with these new laws, and now after nearly three years and two legal challenges against the ordinance, a Boulder County judge has overturned it.

This is a big win for those who fought against Boulder’s ban, such as Rally for our Rights who lead two large gun rights rallies in downtown Boulder and even held an AR-15 giveaway to raise money for the legal challenges.

The NRA backed lawsuit Chambers v Boulder sought injunctive relief claiming that two portions of the ordinance were preempted by Colorado state law, something that was argued repeatedly by gun owners, constitutional experts, and gun rights advocates during the heated debate leading up to the final passage of the ordinance.

Colorado’s preemption statute, CRS 29-11.7-103, states: “A local government may not enact an ordinance, regulation, or other law that prohibits the sale, purchase, or possession of a firearm that a person may lawfully sell, purchase, or possess under state or federal law. Any such ordinance, regulation, or other law enacted by a local government prior to March 18, 2003, is void and unenforceable.”

The two portions of the ordinance Chambers v Boulder claimed violated the preemption law were:

Count 1 – that the portions of the Ordinance banning the sale purchase, and possession of assault weapons, and enacting the certification process are preempted by state law;

Count 2 – that the portion of the Ordinance that ban Large Capacity Magazines are preempted by state law.

On March 12, 2021 Boulder County District Judge Andrew Hartman agreed with the NRA backed plaintiffs that Boulder’s ban on possessing and transferring commonly-possessed “assault weapons” and ten-round magazines was preempted by state law. Here is what he wrote in his final order, effectively overturning the ban:

“In sum, the Court finds that State of Colorado law preempts Boulder City Ordinance 8245 and Ordinance 8259 as they relate to the prohibition of the sale, possession, and transfer of assault weapons and LCMs, specifically the inclusion of “assault weapons” and “LCMs” in the definition of “illegal weapons” pursuant to Boulder Rev. Code § 5-8-2. These provisions are invalid, and enforcement of them is enjoined. The Court has determined that only Colorado state (or federal) law can prohibit the possession, sale, and transfer of assault weapons and large capacity magazines.”

Read the entire 22 page final order here.

Boulder still faces yet another lawsuit, backed by Mountain States Legal Foundation (MSLF). Unlike the NRA backed suit which solely targeted preemption, the MSLF legal challenge, Caldara v Boulder, began in U.S. District Court challenging the constitutionality of the Boulder ordinance, citing violation of the Second Amendment as well as preemption. The U.S. District Court of Colorado chose to abstain from hearing the case until the NRA backed state case was decided. MSLF appealed that decision in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, and most recently they filed a petition for Supreme Court review of the abstention issue. That was denied. A noteworthy aspect of the MSLF case is that in addition to challenging the firearm and magazine bans, it challenges the two other key points of the Boulder ordinance, both which were dismissed from the NRA one early on: 1.) the section prohibiting 18-20 year olds from purchasing long guns, and 2.) open carry of “assault weapons” in Boulder.

The city of Boulder can appeal the most recent decision, and if they do, it could eventually land in front of the Colorado Supreme Court. Colorado’s current Supreme Court has not been friendly to gun related issues on the grounds of preemption, primarily their most recent 2020 decision on the RMGO backed legal challenge against the states ban of magazines larger than 15 rounds. It should be noted that if it was to go to the Colorado Supreme Court and were decided in favor of Boulder, that would be the end of the NRA suit, as without a constitutional challenge, it cannot move to a higher court – but the MSLF suit could continue.

That said, the Boulder challenge is unique in that preemption law is specific to local government and does not specifically prohibit the legislature from enacting statewide laws.

The most notable time Colorado Supreme Court has heard a local government firearm preemption challenge was in 2005 after Denver sued the state of Colorado over the 2003 preemption law, saying the city should be able to enact it’s own laws under home rule. The was because Denver’s own firearm laws they had on the books since 1994 should have been nullified by the new preemption law. In the end, a Denver District Court judge agreed with the city, eventually landing the case in front of the Colorado Supreme Court. The state’s highest court deadlocked and the rare split-ruling meant Denver prevailed in the case and the city could resume enforcing its firearm laws that had not been enforced during litigation. Many familiar with the case say the ruling was not based on the preemption law itself, but because Denver had enacted their law prior to the date the preemption law was enacted.

MSLFs case is still alive and well, although they will likely wait to see if Boulder chooses to appeal before making a decision as to what their next move will be. If their case eventually moves forward in the 10th Circuit, it could become an important Second Amendment case to watch.

Although the Chambers v Boulder decision is specific to Boulder, it will undoubtedly set a precedent as other municipalities consider pushing similar laws.

Now that this is settled, we assume gun control groups such as Moms Demand Action, Everytown for Gun Safety, and Giffords will start tackling real issues, like skyrocketing violent crime. We won’t hold our breath though.

HAVE YOU VISITED OUR STORE LATELY?

Florida City Signs Pro-NRA Proclamation, Cites San Francisco’s Vote Declaring NRA A Terrorist Organization

Posted on September 23, 2019 by Lesley Hollywood

Florida City Signs Pro-NRA Proclamation, Cites San Francisco's Vote Declaring NRA A Terrorist Organization

During Vero Beach, Florida’s regular city council meeting on September 17th, the council signed a pro-NRA proclamation. This was in response to the San Francisco, California Board of Supervisors unanimously voting to declare the NRA a terrorist organization, a move that has since prompted a lawsuit by the NRA.

Vero Beach Mayor Val Zudans, MD also wrote a scathing letter on official city letterhead blasting San Francisco’s action against NRA members. This provoked a columnist from The San Francisco Examiner to publish an opinion piece titled “A letter to the Florida mayor who trashe d our fine city of San Francisco”.

We’re well aware many people have been critical of the NRA, but I’m sure we can all agree NRA members are not terrorists.

The gun control fight has been seeping into towns and cities across the country, from the passage of Second Amendment Sanctuary Resolutions as we’ve seen here in Colorado, to Assault Weapons bans as Boulder passed in 2018, and anti-gun resolutions such as what was just adopted by the city of Longmont on September 10th.

If you discover pro or anti-gun measures being brought up in YOUR cities, please contact us.

Here’s is what the resolution reads:

WHEREAS, the 11 member City of San Francisco Board of Supervisors in their official government position unanimously declared the National Rifle Association (NRA) a “domestic terrorist organization”; and

WHEREAS, millions of law-abiding American NRA members were labelled terrorists; and

WHEREAS, the First Amendment to the Constitution guarantees the freedom of association and right to petition the government for a redress of grievances; and

WHEREAS, the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution guarantees our right to due process; and

WHEREAS, the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution guarantees equal protection of the laws; and

WHEREAS, San Francisco’s official government action threatens all of these fundamental Constitutional rights;

WHEREAS, the National Rifle Association is our stanch defender of these fundamental Constitutional rights and not a domestic terrorist organization.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Vera Beach, Florida does hereby proclaim the National Rifle Association an extraordinary defender of Americans’ Constitutional Civil Rights.

CLICK HERE to read a PDF of the proclamation.

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms must always be defended!
Get a “Come & Find It” sticker for a donation to Rally for our Rights of $5 or more.

CLICK HERE TO GET YOURS

(OTHER DESIGNS ALSO AVAILABLE)

Longmont, CO Wants to Register Their Gun Owners, Mandate Smart Tech Gun Locks

Posted on August 31, 2019September 5, 2019 by Lesley Hollywood

In a Gun Safety Resolution so extreme it puts Boulder, CO’s so-called “assault weapons” ban to shame, Longmont, CO city council is asking federal and state elected officials to implement laws such as gun registration and requiring gun locks so advanced the technology barely even exists yet, among many other things.

On Tuesday, Councilman Tim Waters presented the resolution. It was voted 5-2 to advance to the next step – deliberation and a final vote which will take place on Tuesday, Sept 10 at 7pm during the weekly city council meeting. If approved, Mayor Brian Bagley would have to forward this resolution to state and federal elected officials conveying that these are the laws city council believes Longmont’s law abiding gun owners should have to abide by. It should be noted, Mayor Bagley was one of the NO votes to move the resolution forward, along with Councilwoman Bonnie Finley.

Here is what the resolution calls for:

1.) Required state issued permits for gun ownership.
2.) Universal background checks on all sales, including the private sale of firearms*.
3.) State issued permits for concealed carry*.
4.) State issued permits for concealed carry within a vehicle*.
5.) Banning the personal sale or purchase of military grade weapons by non-military personnel.
6.) Limits on magazine capacity*.
7.) Required gun locks that enable only permitted gun owners to fire a weapon.
8.) Prohibitions of gun ownership by convicted felons and individuals convicted of domestic abuse.
9.) Red flagging individuals who have given family members and/or law enforcement reasons for concern about their mental and emotional stability*.

(Read the PDF of the resolution distributed by Councilman Tim waters on Tuesday here.)

According to Councilman Waters, the asterisk denotes laws that already exist in Colorado, although it’s unclear what he means by #4: State issued permits for conceal carry within vehicle. Is he suggesting Colorado has a separate permit that allows individuals to carry a firearm within their vehicle or is he simply denoting it’s an extension of #3? Just to be clear, there is no separate law requiring a permit to carry within a vehicle in Colorado.

The others with an asterisk are accurate – #2, #6 and #9. In 2013 Colorado passed expanded background checks as well as restricted magazine capacity to 15 rounds, although it’s done nothing to curb gun deaths (homicides and suicide combined), and in fact, gun deaths have been rising at an alarming rate in the state since those laws were enacted. You could almost make the case that it’s had the opposite effect of what was intended. And as for #9, Colorado’s “Red Flag” Extreme Risk Protection Orders ERPO legislation was signed into law this past April, but the law will not go into effect until January 1, 2020. I’ve also pointed out that Red Flag laws don’t work in other states that have them, such as Indiana where suicide rates are skyrocketing and they’ve had a Red Flag law since 2005, or California where there has been a public mass shooting yearly since they enacted their Red Flag law in 2014, and Sandy Hook happened in Connecticut after they enacted their Red Flag law in 1999.

But now let’s take a good look at the other laws the resolution calls for…

#1: State issued permits for gun ownership. This is a gun owner registry plain and simple. A registry required based off an irrational fear of property we own. Which class of people will Longmont suggest we register next based off an irrational fear? Muslims? Jews? The bigotry of the council is astounding. And how much will it cost to register? Are they also discriminating against poor people who can’t afford to register? Oh, and we all know exactly who will NOT register – criminals. In addition, talk of a registry always begs the question of how it will stop evil people from committing evil acts? Would someone who wishes to do harm with a firearm not do so because they’ve “registered”, suddenly instilling morals and a sense of right from wrong into the individual? Absolutely not.

#5: Banning the personal sale or purchase of military grade weapons by non-military personnel. What does this even mean? If they’re referring to banning access to firearms such as AR-15’s or AK-47’s that civilians can legally purchase from a gun store in the United States, it certainly wouldn’t be included under #5 as those firearms are not used by military. Maybe they mean they want to eliminate the ability for civilians to spend $30k and purchase a full auto through the NFA? Considering the latter is still legal in Boulder where they banned “assault weapons” in 2018, it’s more likely that Councilman Tim Waters has no idea what he is even talking about, but still supports sending men with “weapons of war” to confiscate “weapons of war” from people who have done absolutely nothing wrong. I bet he claims to be against police brutality too, even though he’d support police enforcing his ban up and to the point of brutal force.

#7: Required gun locks that enable only permitted gun owners to fire a weapon. Now we’re not just talking about access to firearms via a smart technology safe, but the actual requirement that the gun cannot be fired unless by the registered gun owner. This kind of smart technology barely exists, and what does exist is incredibly expensive. For example, German firearms manufacturer Armatix LLC manufactures RFID enabled guns that are only activated by those with an authorized watch. But the pricetag is through the roof at $1800 for it’s most basic .22 caliber iP1 pistol. So again, we’re talking about laws that limit access to self defense only to those who can afford it, blatant discrimination against the poor. The technology also doesn’t come without flaws, and dangerous ones at that. Even though the manufacturer says the bracelet must be within 1 foot of the firearm to function, multiple videos have proven that all it takes to bypass the safety block is a simple magnet held next to the firearm, rendering it an overpriced and awkward .22 handgun. Plus RFID jammers are easy to make, creating a whole new black market where stalkers and rapists can obtain the means to deactivate a potential victim’s instrument of self defense.

#8: Prohibitions of gun ownership by convicted felons and individuals convicted of domestic abuse. This is already federal law, with felons and domestic abusers being entered into the NICS database, prohibiting the legal purchase of a firearm, and it’s simply illegal for them to own one.

If there is one word that comes to mind after reading this, it’s privilege. This is what privilege looks like. Councilman Waters, along with council members Marcia Martin, Polly Christiansen, Aren Rodriguez, and Joan Peck who joined him in his support of this resolution, are so privileged they don’t understand why someone could possibly ever need to defend themselves. And those who are underprivileged and live in poverty would have their right to self defense stripped of them, even though statistics show people living in households in the US that have an income level below the Federal poverty threshold have more than double the rates of violent victimization compared to individuals in high-income households. And because the poverty rate of African Americans is almost double of that of Caucasians, you could almost call Councilman Waters proposals white privilege. I mean, he must believe only rich white people should be allowed to defended themselves, right?

Now, some may say resolutions are worthless; simply a statement with no teeth. I don’t see it that way. What I see is a city council who will be voting September 10th on whether or not they believe these laws should be forced upon the 94,000 people in their city. And if their vote is yes, what’s to stop them from doing an ordinance next?

Please speak up, especially if you are a Longmont resident. You can email the entire council at once at: [email protected] and telephone numbers can be found here. Attend the next city council meeting: Sept 10th at 7pm, Civic Center 350 Kimbark St. Longmont, CO 80501. If you are comfortable doing so, come with a 3 minute prepared speech to give during public comment (it’s easy). If you don’t want to speak, please still come and offer support to others. Questions? Contact us.

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms must always be defended!
Get a sticker for a donation to Rally for our Rights of $5 or more.
CLICK HERE TO GET YOURS

(other designs available)

Trump Admin Bump Stock Ban: What You Need To Know

Posted on December 19, 2018December 19, 2018 by Lesley Hollywood

Trump admin bans bump stocks Rally for our Rights Colorado A few months ago I was at a gun rights rally when a news reporter came up to me and asked, “How is it legal for these people to be carrying these machine guns out on the streets?!” She was referring to the half dozen or so attendees (among hundreds) who were open carrying rifles. She was pointing in particular to a gentleman with a .22 rifle slung snugly on his chest, and another young woman with her AR-15 slung on her back. I held back my chuckle, looked her right in the eye, and said: “Ma’am, those may be machines and they may be guns, but they are not machine guns.” I went on to explain that while by definition any firearm is technically a machine, actual machine guns were regulated under the National Firearms Act. We then walked around and people eagerly explained the very few differences between the handguns some had, and the rifles others had. We had a great discussion about what had been banned in Boulder, CO with real life examples – and even she began to grasp the absurdity of it. Needless to say, we had great media coverage that day.

This conversation came back to me yesterday morning as I learned the Trump administration directed the ATF to finalize an impending “bump stock” ban. What it does is essentially label an arbitrary piece of metal or plastic, that has no automatic functioning mechanical parts, as a “machine gun”. This ban places bump-stock-type devices under the NFA, a grossly unconstitutional law requiring citizens to pay exorbitant amounts of money, register with the Secretary of Treasury, and jump through dozens of government hoops, to obtain certain firearms.

In the ATF’s amended regulation released yesterday, bump stocks are defined as “devices that allow a semiautomatic firearm to shoot more than one shot with a single pull of a trigger.” This is interesting because just last year, Michael Curtis, chief of the Firearms Technology Industry Services branch of the ATF, said the product was not prohibited “since the device does not initiate an automatic firing cycle by a single function of the trigger [and therefore] it is not a machine gun under the NFA.”

Under the new ban those in possession of bump-stock-type devices must turn them in to an ATF field office or destroy them by March 21st, 2019.

Trump admin bans bump stocks Rally for our Rights Colorado

Many people may believe bump stocks are simply a fun accessories for gun enthusiasts, but what they are missing is that bump stocks were originally created to help those with limited mobility in their hands. A friend of mine has testified on this premise, stating: “Regardless of the opinions of others, I as a disabled person should be able to determine which tools are best for me in my pursuit of recreational, legal shooting sports. It is sickening to me how many people either do not know about bump fire stocks helping disabled people, or who try to minimize or pretend that there is no debate, and that civilians should not have access to them.”

Bump fire action can also be replicated with a rubber band, a belt loop, or even your finger (if you know what you’re doing). Will we next regulate rubber bands as machine guns? Because that’s how absurd this new law is.

Make no mistake, this ban does not come without justified legal challenges. Immediately after Tuesday morning’s announcement, attorneys for an owner of a “bump-stock” device and three constitutional rights advocacy organizations filed a federal lawsuit against the Trump Administration. The suit comes with multiple arguments. First, they are challenging Matthew Whitaker’s legal authority to serve as Acting Attorney General and issue rules without being nominated to the role and confirmed by the Senate. Second, they are challenging the confiscatory ban on firearm parts. And third they are requesting an immediate temporary injunction to prevent the Trump Administration from implementing and enforcing the new regulation. Click here to learn more about the legal action and how you can help.

There are many people, even in the gun rights community, arguing that this is simply throwing a bone to the gun grabbers in an effort to quiet them. This attitude is completely wrong. It not only doesn’t appease the anti-gun community, it motivates them. Just yesterday, Shannon Watts, founder of Moms Demand Action, says to her it signals a new openness on the part of the administration to continue to tighten firearms regulations.

Importantly, this ban has bipartisan support. On Election Day, American voters made it clear they want comprehensive action on gun violence, and that starts with strengthening background checks. This step by the Trump Administration signals that they heard voters in the midterms.

— Shannon Watts (@shannonrwatts) December 18, 2018

The “bump stock” ban is an assault on the Constitution and law abiding gun owners, but it’s also an assault on the uninformed general populace who have been led to believe it will do ANYTHING beyond create a false sense of security.

Tired of being demonized as a law abiding gun owner? Help us get these billboards up! Donate here: www.gofundme.com/gun-rights-billboards

Red Flag Gun Bills Have Nothing To Do With Mental Health And Everyone Should Care

Posted on December 14, 2018December 14, 2018 by Val Chaton

Earlier this year, during the 2018 legislative session, Colorado Republicans held a one seat majority in the state senate. This was enough to stop a poorly written and heavily rushed Red Flag Bill from becoming law. Unfortunately for those who support gun rights and due process, that single seat was lost in November’s election along with several others, and 2019’s legislative session is expected to be a fight – with a Red Flag Bill a top priority for lawmakers who are proving to be against the civil rights of the same citizens they were elected to represent.

Here’s a thorough breakdown of the last Red Flag Bill Coloradan’s faced, as well as details about the major issues within such legislation.

Colorado’s Red Flag Bill (HB18-1436) was heavily promoted through the media – both radio and TV- as a mental health bill, implying that it would help the mentally ill and get them treatment. But when Sheriff Sprulock was asked on May 7, 2018 in a Senate committee meeting, “Does this bill address how to get those people that mental health treatment?” Sheriff Sprulock answered, “No it doesn’t.”

The issuing of an Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO) begins with the petitioner making a phone call, at minimum, to the court to request an ERPO. There is no verification or proof required for this phone call. This call could come from someone claiming to be a “dating partner” or a “family member”. Your bitter neighbor could claim to have had an affair with you. There is no limitation to how long ago you dated or who the family member is, or even if they are in the state of Colorado.

The court must issue a hearing by telephone or in person with the petitioner that same day or the following day. The judge will hear a “preponderance of evidence” from the petitioner, and only the petitioner, with the goal to convince the fact finder that there is a greater than 50% chance that the claim is true. This is comparable to a “he said – she said” argument, only the accused gun owner is not informed or allowed to contest the petitioner. This is a Kangaroo court, and the gun owners’ damnation is absolute. In the court hearing, evidence such as access to a firearm or purchased ammunition is enough to issue a temporary ERPO.

Once the temporary ERPO is issued, the gun owner is then declared a “dangerous person” and a good faith effort is made to issue the gun owner a statement that they can no longer be in possession of a firearm. The gun owner must sell the firearms, transfer them to a Federal Firearms Licensed dealer, or hand them over to the police. It is at this point the accused even learns such a case has been brought to the court. They must comply, no questions asked, or they may face death, as we recently saw in Maryland.

Seven days after the temporary ERPO is issued the gun owner can have a court date where they are responsible to provide an attorney to defend themselves. Because they have not been accused of a crime, they will NOT be read their Miranda Rights and an attorney will NOT be provided to them. They must proceed pro-se or hire an attorney.

If this bill is for mental health, the Petitioner just cost the gun owner thousands of dollars in legal defense fees; funds which could have otherwise been spent on treatment.

This bill states that “clear and convincing evidence” is the requirement to issue a EPRO for 182 days. It also states that having any access to a firearm or the purchase of ammunition is clear and convincing evidence. Because the bill lists the purchase of ammunition as clear and convincing evidence, it has short changed the higher standard of evidence for one that is almost as low as the preponderance of evidence requirement.

Then if found innocent of everything, you are not guaranteed to be removed from the NICS database and therefore cannot get your firearms back. If you’re a resident of a city such as Boulder, where an “assault weapons” ban allowed a grandfathering period where you could get your firearms certified, if you did not certify your firearms, you will not be getting them back.

Bottom line: If you are issued an ERPO, you will have to give up your firearms, you will have to provide your own legal defense at your cost, your name will go into the NICS database as being prohibited from having a firearm, all before you go to court to prove your case, and never once will actual mental health be a topic.

Don’t be fooled, this bill is a gun grab bill in the name of mental health, where gun owners must give up their property before due processes is given.

Gun owners save lives! Armed citizens stop crime with firearms more than 1.5 million times each year. Help us get this billboard up for the 2019 legislative session! Donate here: www.gofundme.com/gun-rights-billboards

Only Days Left For Boulder, CO Residents To Register Their Firearms

Posted on December 9, 2018December 14, 2018 by Lesley Hollywood

Rally for our Rights has been at the forefront of Boulder, Colorado’s so-called “assault weapons” ban since it’s inception. We attended city council meetings and organized messaging campaigns encouraging residents to contact their local government officials. We organized a street demonstration on April 21st, 2018 in protest to the proposed ban – an event which was attended by hundreds in the heart of Colorado’s most progressive city – even in the rain/snow. There were threats of lawsuits against Boulder, one of which came to fruition less than 24 hours after the ordinance passed, and another quickly followed. Despite these efforts, the Boulder elites who make up the city council voted unanimously on May 15th, 2018 to ban the sale and possession of many semi-automatic rifles, pistols, and shotguns as well as bump stocks and magazines holding more than 10 rounds. This unconstitutional move did nothing to address actual crime, but instead criminalized and demonized the law abiding.

Only Days Left For Boulder, CO Residents To Register Their Firearms : Rally for our Rights

As part of this ban, residents who owned any of the prohibited firearms prior to the day the ban went into law (June 15th, 2018) can participate in the city’s “This-Is-Not-A-Registry” program and grandfather their guns with a certification. The last day to certify a firearm is supposed to be December 31st, 2018, but Boulder Police have stated that due to the holidays, the last day will actually be December 27th. The complete ban will officially take effect on January 1, 2019, at which point possession of a banned weapon without a certificate will be punishable by 90 days in jail and/or a $1,000 fine, and firearms will be confiscated and destroyed.

The certification process involves taking the firearm(s) being certified to the police department (unloaded and secured in vehicle) where they will be inspected. You must have a valid photo ID and a new background check will be run. If the the background check comes back clear, two certificates per firearm will be issued. The cost is $20 for the first firearm and $5 for each additional firearm.

Boulder Colorado Firearms Registration Certification

Gun owners must then keep the certificate with the firearm at all times – forever – otherwise they’re a criminal. Lose this piece of paper? The firearm can be confiscated. Don’t comply? Criminal. Allegedly there are no copies of these certificates kept.

According to Boulder Police Department, they have certified 85 firearms so far. Now, let’s make this clear – this is not 85 gun owners, this is 85 firearms. Each prohibited firearm needs it’s own certificate. With the average gun owner possessing eight firearms, it is likely less than ten people have actually complied. But this begs a question – if they aren’t keeping records, how do they know how many certificates have been issued? According to them they are keeping a handwritten tally. A handwritten tally of how many law abiding gun owners are certifying their firearms, because we know the people we should actually be concerned with aren’t certifying theirs.

Then we had to ask how many bump stocks or magazines above 10 rounds have been turned in? You guessed it, ZERO.

Boulder’s ban includes:

1.) All semi-automatic center-fire rifles that have the ability to accept a detachable magazine and have a pistol grip, telescoping stock, or off hand stabilization feature.

2.) All semi-automatic center-fire pistols that have the ability to accept a detachable magazine other than in the pistol grip or has any other secondary stabilization feature.

3.) All semi-automatic shotguns that have the ability to accept a detachable magazine, or have a fixed magazine over 5 rounds, or have any secondary stabilization features.

Read the “assault weapons” ban ordinance in it’s entirety here.

And read the bump stock/magazine ban ordinance here.

What’s Next:

One of the most common questions we receive is how is this legal, and if it has been challenged in court. It is not legal, and it is being challenged in court. The day after the ordinance passed into law, Mountain States Legal Foundation filed a suit in federal court. Not long after, the NRA filed a suit in state court. The federal suit is on hold until the state suit is decided.

Colorado has a preemption law in its state constitution that clearly states what Boulder has done is not legal.

C.R.S. 29-11.7-103:

A local government may not enact an ordinance, regulation, or other law that prohibits the sale, purchase, or possession of a firearm that a person may lawfully sell, purchase, or possess under state or federal law. Any such ordinance, regulation, or other law enacted by a local government prior to March 18, 2003, is void and unenforceable.

Boulder is claiming because it is a home rule city, it is not beholden to the state constitution or state laws. If this is the case, we have to wonder if more gun friendly home rule cities can claim the same, and exempt themselves from Colorado’s magazine limits and enhanced background checks. Your move, Colorado courts.

With 250,000 medical malpractice deaths each year, you are 10,000 times more likely to be killed by a doctor than an AR-15. Help us get this billboard up! Donate here: www.gofundme.com/gun-rights-billboards

Tag: Boulder

Take Action NOW!

Three Gun Control Bills Introduced