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

Longmont City Council Meeting On Extreme "Gun Safety Resolution"

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

No politician who supports gun control should get armed protection paid for by those they are trying to disarm sticker : Rally For Our Rights

(other designs available)

School Backpedals After CO Teen Was Banned From Classes For Shooting Guns With Mother

School Backpedals After CO Teen Was Banned For Shooting Guns With Mother Even After Police Cleared Him : Rally for our Rights

In a follow up to the story we broke yesterday of a Loveland, Colorado teen who was banned from classes after he posted videos of himself shooting guns with his mother on Snapchat, the student has now been cleared to go back to class and the school is backpedaling.

Here’s a recap of what happened: Justine Myers took her son, Nate, shooting earlier this week. When they returned home they discovered the police were attempting to contact them.  Nate had posted two videos on Snapchat; one video had the firearms they were going to use with the caption “Finna be lit” (which is teenage slang for “going to be a great time”), and the other was a video of him shooting while his mother instructed him. Someone had seen these videos and reported him to police via the school’s Safe 2 Tell system which allows anonymous tips to law enforcement and the school.  The police spoke with Nate and his parents, watched the videos, determined Nate was not a threat to himself or others nor had he made any threats, and they were well within their legal rights. They then went on their way. But that wasn’t good enough for the school.  The following morning a voicemail was received from Thompson Valley School District stating that Nate could not go to school and was banned indefinitely until a “threat assessment” hearing was completed. The school also refused to provide Nate with school work to prevent him from falling behind. When Justine explained the situation and stated the police had already assessed it and cleared him, her words were hastily dismissed by school officials.

After this story broke fellow parents, community members, and even elected officials contacted school admin and district board members to express their disapproval of this blatant violation of the student’s civil liberties, as well as the complete disregard for parental rights.  And it undoubtedly had an effect.

The threat assessment hearing took place this morning and Nate has been cleared to return to class. The school officials came prepared with a packet of his homework, and stated they believed him to be a good kid and never thought he was making threats against the school.  They acknowledged that his classmates may now react differently to him (I mean, he’s practically been accused of being the next school shooter, right?) and offered to make sure no one gave him trouble. The SRO who was present agreed that the Safe 2 Tell system is sometimes used inappropriately by students wishing to anonymously seek revenge on another student.  School officials also cautioned Nate to not post these types of activities on social media.  Justine quickly reminded them that this is his First Amendment they’re talking about, and although she gets their point, that is a dangerous slope they’re heading down.

When Justine questioned why any of this had to happen in the first place since the police had already assessed the situation, she was told the school hadn’t received the police assessment until the following afternoon, nearly 20 hours later.  Now here’s where I call BS.  If there is a report of a threat that is deemed credible enough to warrant police investigation to a student’s home on a weekday evening, the results of such investigation would have been relayed immediately to the school to determine if the school was safe to open the following day.  And if that police assessment wasn’t immediately relayed, that school has far bigger security issues than any parent even realizes.

Everyone bent over backwards to try to right the situation, but no one went so far as to apologize.

Is it over for Nate?  The good news is nothing permanent will go on his school record and he can continue his education.  But he’s undoubtedly been traumatized by the entire situation and now will have a “reputation” at school.  He’ll also have the thought police living in his own head every time he wants to share anything that isn’t lock-step with PC culture.  And at 16 years old, he’s had his civil rights violated for participating in not one, but two, constitutionally protected activities – shooting guns and sharing a video of it.

On January 1, 2020 Colorado’s “Red Flag” Emergency Risk Protection Orders ERPO law will go into effect.  I’ve long said ERPO’s will be Safe2Tell for adults, and students have dubbed Safe 2 Tell as “Safe 2 Swat”, referencing the act of “swatting“, a criminal harassment tactic of deceiving an emergency service into sending a police and emergency service response team to another person’s address.  Had this same scenario taken place while the ERPO law is in effect, Justine likely would have lost her firearms.

We need to continue to rally together as a community and push back at every turn.  If you or your child ends up in a situation like Nate’s, please don’t hesitate to reach out to us here at Rally for our Rights. We’ve got your back.

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

The Right To Keep And Bear Arms Will Be Defended Sticker - Rally for our Rights

(other designs available)

Colorado Student Banned From School For Going Shooting With His Mom

Colorado Student Removed From School Indefinitely For Going Shooting With His Mom

Justine Myers is your pretty average northern Colorado mom.  She loves her kids, supports the troops, praises our first responders, and owns firearms. On Wednesday, Justine picked up her 16 year old son Nate early from school for some mother-son bonding time – she took him shooting, a common northern Colorado hobby.

After a fun afternoon, they return home and get settled in – and the police show up.  Nate had posted on his Snapchat that he was going shooting with his mom along with this video (for those who need a little help translating the slang kids use these days “Finna be lit” basically means “Going to be a good time”.)…

And here’s a video of him shooting with his mother, who can be heard instructing him:

A report had come in to the police department about the video and they were told Nate was a threat.  After showing the videos to the police officers and explaining that they’d simply gone on a mother-son outing to train with their legally owned firearms, the police stated that they had done nothing illegal and were well within their rights.  They also determined Nate was not a threat to himself or anyone else, and went on their way.

But it wasn’t over.

This morning Justine woke up to a voicemail from Thompson Valley School District where Nate is a junior at Loveland High School in Loveland, CO.  The voicemail informed Justine that a report had come in claiming Nate was a threat to the school and he was not allowed to return until further notice. The report presumably came through Safe 2 Tell.  There are reports that a school wide email was also sent to parents about the “threat”.   Justine immediately contacted the school assuming she could easily clear things up, especially since the police had already assessed the situation and realized no one had done anything wrong or made any threats.  She was wrong.  The school not only refused to provide her with more information about the “threat”, but they refused to provide Nate with schoolwork so he doesn’t get behind.  A “threat assessment hearing” has been scheduled for Thursday morning at 10am at the school admin building where Justine will be allowed to defend her son against SEVEN school officials who will be in attendance to, as she was told, “make their case”.  Make their case of what?  That Nate’s outing with his mother to train with her firearms somehow makes him a danger to the school?

I spoke with Justine, as well as two different attorneys who specialize in Second Amendment issues.  The bottom line is the school is legally within their rights at this time.  According to the attorneys, the school has a protocol that must be followed when a report of a threat comes in through Safe 2 Tell or other means, even if the report is completely false – and there is nothing parents or students can legally do about it, even with a lawyer.  If the student is charged or further action is taken, that changes.  This is why students have dubbed Safe 2 Tell as “Safe 2 Swat”, referencing the act of “swatting“, a criminal harassment tactic of deceiving an emergency service into sending a police and emergency service response team to another person’s address.  The person who will face no repercussions?  The false accuser.  As for Nate, he has aspirations to join the military and is now worried this incident will go on his permanent school record with far-reaching implications.

If this happens to you or your child, what should you do?

1.) Don’t talk to the police.
2.) Be prepared for a visit from CPS.
3.) Consider moving your firearms to safe place until it is cleared up.
4.) Contact us for lawyer referrals and moral support.

We’ve had some people accuse us of this story being fabricated.  We don’t fabricate stories. The mother is a member of our organization and we reached out to help her.  We have both email and voicemails from the school but chose to not publish them out of fear of readers doxxing the school employees (something we’d rather not be held legally liable for). The story is breaking. Click here for another source.

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

The Right To Keep And Bear Arms Will Be Defended Sticker - Rally for our Rights

(other designs available)

Arming Teachers In Colorado: Everything You Need To Know

Arming Teachers In Colorado: Everything You Need To Know - Rally for our Rights

 

Since the recent remarks made by the Douglas County, CO School District Superintendent, Dr. Thomas Tucker, vowing to remove any school, even a charter school, from his district if they wanted armed school staff to be part of a security plan, the amount of misinformation I’ve seen about “armed teachers” has been astonishing. The idea that people like myself, who support school and community autonomy over school security, wants to see every teacher in every school “packin’ heat, gun slingin’ like the old west” is downright ridiculous.  Hell, some of the stuff I’ve heard you’d think we wanted to arm kids (we do not, trust me)!  So let’s look at the facts…

Colorado is one of dozens of states that legally allows individuals to carry a concealed firearm on school grounds during school hours with specific conditions.  The laws in each state vary to some degree.

Here is exactly what Colorado’s CRS 18-12-214 (3) (b) states: “A permittee who is employed or retained by contract by a school district or charter school as a school security officer may carry a concealed handgun onto the real property, or into any improvement erected thereon, of a public elementary, middle, junior high, or high school while the permittee is on duty;”

So, what does that mean?

It means that school district boards or charter school boards can authorize individual school staff members to conceal carry a firearm on school grounds, even if that person does not work for a security company.  When a decision is made to allow a school staff member to carry, the district will contract with the employee to add the “school security officer” designation to their primary job duties.

Do these staff members have to be insured? Are there training requirements?

In most cases when a staff member is designated on their contract to be a school security officer, a “rider” is added to their insurance.  This insurance rider requires 24 hours of firearm training over the past year, four hours of classroom instruction on firearms safety and use of deadly force, 14 hours of live fire range training exercises, six hours of school active shooter training, and the shooting range test police officers need to pass, among some other things.

Where do they receive the training? 

As more schools are looking into this option, almost all are working with FASTER Colorado.  FASTER stands for Faculty/Administrator Safety Training and Emergency Response.  They are dedicated to training school staff with an all of the above approach.  Their training goes far beyond what insurance requires, adding in a trauma class and a psychological portion.  The trauma skills ensure they’re equipped to not only stop a shooting, but save lives as well.  In some of the most tragic school shootings, it is apparent had someone in the school been equipped to stop the bleed, the fatality rate would have dropped – often times substantially.  The psychological portion discusses how to interact with a school shooter and asks the question “Can you handle what you may one day have to do?” To graduate from the FASTER training, tactical skills must exceed that of law enforcement.  You can watch a 90 minute FASTER presentation here.

Who knows which staff members are armed?

This is entirely up to the school district, but in most cases it is only a select few within the school and local law enforcement.  It is critical armed staff works with local law enforcement to develop a strong communication plan should an active shooter situation occur.

Won’t kids get a hold of the guns?

Part of the training is deep concealment techniques.  This means authorized staff does not simply carry a handgun holstered to their hip or in a conceal carry purse.  It means they have learned and practiced using concealment techniques that are “on-body” 100% of the time, and invisible to even a trained eye.

Isn’t this expensive to the schools?

The insurance rider does increase cost, but it is only a fraction compared to the expense of hiring a SRO or private security.  In addition, there are private grant programs available to schools who cannot afford it.  The FASTER Colorado training is offered at low or no cost when needed.

Are any schools in Colorado already doing this? 

Yes, over 30 school districts in Colorado have authorized personnel.  Many of these districts are rural.  For example, Hanover, a small community southeast of Colorado Springs has authorized staff because in the case of a school shooting, it would take at minimum 30 minutes for law enforcement to arrive.  But more suburban schools are also adding this as part of their security plan.  It is a decision that should be made by parents, teachers, and community members.  It may not be for every school, but for many it’s a great fit and requested by parents.

Many teachers say they don’t want this responsibility.  Will they be forced to carry a firearm if their district does this?

Absolutely not. This is 100% volunteer. No one is forced to do it, and no school is either.  But it’s also important to remember some staff members DO want this responsibility, many of them individuals who already conceal carry on a daily basis outside their regular job and train on their own time as a hobby.  We have seen again and again a teacher, or a coach, die while trying to protect their students with their body. That same individual could save not only their life, but the lives of others, if they are given a fighting chance.

Teachers need to focus on students, not security.  Wouldn’t this affect student education?

First, “school staff” does not mean “teachers”.  It means janitors, cafeteria workers, school counselors, coaches, and/or teachers, etc.  Admin makes up a large contingent of staff.  Many of them are volunteering to take on this role.

Second, there is nothing as distracting as a school shooting.  It leaves life long trauma.  Children don’t survive.  Their safety should be a #1 priority.

Final thoughts…

I’m a single mother of three.  One of my biggest fears is that my children will be in class when a depraved student chooses to create a Columbine copycat – but what I fear even more is that there will be no one there to protect them.  There is no one-size-fits all security plan.  It’s important that school boards and superintendents listen to what parents and the community want.  As parents, we have every right to be critical of our schools and to ask they do a better job protecting our students.  If you want your child’s school to consider allowing well trained and authorized armed staff, the best place to start is the school board.  Email them.  Call them.  Attend their meetings.  Find out where they stand.  And if you need direction, contact us.

You can help Rally for our Rights continue to be at the forefront of defending gun rights while advocating for a safer society by making a contribution today.  Your support is greatly appreciated.  DONATE HERE.

CO School District Threatens To Shut Down Charter School That Allows Armed Staff

Douglas County CO School District Threatens To Shut Down Charter School That Allows Armed Staff : Rally For Our Rights

In Colorado it is legal for public schools and public charter schools to have armed staff if the school board (or in the case of charters schools, the charter board) authorizes the specific individuals.  More than 30 districts in the state already have some form of armed staff.  Reference: CRS 18-12-214 (3) (b).

Douglas County School District in Colorado has 91 schools under their control with ONE school, Ascent Classical Academy – a charter – who is implementing a new security plan this year that includes some staff members being legally authorized to carry. These authorized individuals are volunteers who went through the extensive teacher training program called FASTER Colorado.  FASTER not only teaches tactical techniques, but also has a focus on psychological and trauma skills as well.  For a teacher to graduate from the training program, their tactical skills must exceed that of law enforcement.

Last week during the second “Interim School Safety Committee” hearing at the Colorado State Capitol (a committee put together after the tragic STEM School Shooting at a charter school in Douglas County last May), district superintendent Dr. Thomas Tucker emphatically stated that no schools in HIS district were allowed to have armed staff, that it was a violation of district policy, and if any of them tried to do it, they’d be asked to leave the district.  This included charter schools.

Watch the video here for the complete exchange:

The superintendent’s position has nothing to do with safety, and everything to do with anti-gun ideology.  Under state statute, charter schools have autonomy over their security plans. Reference: CRS 22-32-109-1 (2).  Ascent Classical Academy has a contract with the school district that allows them to implement their new security plan, and they also have a waiver from the district policy GBEB, which talks about armed staff.  In December 2018, the newest anti-gun school board adopted a new policy ADD, that fundamentally changed the previous policy from a mere statement to a directive. They took restrictive language on armed staff from policy GBEB and inserted it into this new ADD – which NO ONE has a waiver from since it wasn’t even applicable to anyone until it was suddenly created last December.  This was an underhanded move to prevent Ascent Classical Academy from implementing their new security policy, even though that policy was developed at the request of parents and teachers of that particular school which does not have the funds to hire a full time SRO.

Ascent Classical Academy is negotiating a transfer to the state charter oversight board but are they insisting the local tax funding the Douglas County kids currently receive continues to support their education – and rightfully so.  The Douglas County school district has been resistant to allow ANY funds to continue to support the school and has even threatened to shut it down if the school will not comply with their new terms.

Parents and community members can attend the Douglas County school board meetings, as well as contact board members and the superintendent here.

They can also voice their concerns to the Interim School Safety Committee by clicking here.

And they can attend the next School Safety Committee hearing on Sept 20th at 9am in the Old State Library of the Colorado State Capitol in Denver, CO.

Help Rally for our Rights continue to attend and document these legislative hearings and bring the information to light!  CLICK HERE TO MAKE A DONATION.

Why “Red Flag” ERPO Laws Are Not The Solution To Mass Shootings

Are "Red Flag" ERPO Laws The Solution To Mass Shootings?

After every public mass shooting, the call for gun control reaches a new pitch.  Those on the anti-gun left have gone so far as suggesting banning nearly every modern day semi-automatic firearm and having police go door to door confiscating them.  And those on the right are calling for “Red Flag” Extreme Risk Protection Order laws in every state.

But is this really the answer?  The suggestion of a door to door gun confiscation would be laughable if these people were joking- but they aren’t.  How any politician believes using what they refer to as “weapons of war” to confiscate “weapons of war” will not turn into a war, is beyond me.  Even the anti-gun, Bloomberg funded website “The Trace” admits there are at bare minimum 20 million civilian owned, modern day sporting rifles in the US, and nearly all of them have never been used to commit a crime.

So what about “Red Flag” laws?  Let’s take a quick look at Red Flag laws and what they do…

“Red Flag” laws are also called ERPO’s or Extreme Risk Protection Orders, a term coined by the anti-gun movement to deter from the negative reputation that came with “Red Flag” legislation.  Don’t be fooled though, they are the exact same thing.  Red Flag laws have actually been around since 1999, although they are quickly rising in popularity.  In fact, Connecticut had a Red Flag law in place when the Sandy Hook shooting happened and California had one in place at the time of the San Bernardino attack, the Thousands Oaks shooting, and the Gilroy Garlic Festival shooting.

The proponents and mainstream media will tell you Red Flag ERPO laws allow family or law enforcement to petition the court to have the firearms removed from someone who is proven to be a danger to themselves or others.

To the general public, this sounds pretty benign, and polling reflects that when the law is presented this way.

But what if I phrased it this way: It’s a law that allows an abusive ex to petition the court, over the phone, for $0, to have the firearms confiscated from an individual they wish to disarm.  The petition is granted based on the lowest evidentiary threshold used in court, a preponderance of evidence (meaning there is a 51% chance that the accusation is true) and when the temporary order is issued by the court, it is coupled with a search warrant.  This means the first time the accused even finds out these proceedings are taking place is when the police are at their door ready to raid their home prepared to take away their means of self defense against the same abusive ex who requested the ERPO – and possibly the means of defense for their children.

Because that is exactly what these laws do.  It is legalized swatting that can be done by a laundry list of family members, former and current roommates, and anyone you have ever been intimate with.  Don’t believe me?  Read through the 30+ pages of HB19-1177 “Red Flag” Extreme Risk Protection Orders that was just signed by the governor here in Colorado.

There is a big difference between supporting the concept of a Red Flag law, and supporting the actual legislation that is being passed. The devil is always in the details.

But do they work?

Well, we already pointed out above three mass shooting in California with one of the broadest Red Flag laws (right behind Colorado’s), as well as Sandy Hook in Connecticut.  So, no, they didn’t work to stop killers in those instances and there is zero evidence they have thwarted any attacks elsewhere.

But what about suicide? Proponents will of course tell you yes, they work.  States like Indiana pointed to stats showing suicide by firearm was decreasing.  Well, turns out it wasn’t.  It was still increasing but not at the projected rate, so they consider that a win.  In addition, suicide by other methods has skyrocketed and Indiana has dropped from 19th in the country for mental health in 2011, to 45th in 2015, and in both 2016 and 2017 suicide was the tenth leading cause of death for all residents over all demographics, and the leading cause for certain demographics.  Their Red Flag law was enacted in 2005.

Why are we seeing these results?  Because these laws have nothing to do with mental health, and everything to do with taking away the guns.  The bill sponsors here in Colorado even admitted that during the month long debate before the bill passed by ONE SINGLE vote with every Republican and three Democrats voting against it.  Watch the video here:

These laws are widely opposed by law enforcement, as they realize the danger they will put their officers and citizens in, as well as the unconstitutionality of the law.  In Colorado, more than 50 of the 64 sheriffs opposed the legislation, as did the Denver and Aurora police unions.  The ACLU has opposed legislation in other states such as Rhode Island.  And people have been killed having these Red Flag orders served, such as happened in Maryland when a woman ERPO’d her brother after a family dispute. She later admitted she did not believe he would have hurt a fly, but he was killed when he refused to turn over his guns. Trading death for death is never the answer. The lives of gun owners do not matter less than the lives of anyone else.

We should also always remember in the “do something” era, passing feel good, knee jerk, virtue signaling legislation is a waste of valuable time and resources that could be used to actually DO SOMETHING, for example Maine passed a completely different proper adjudication law to address the same issue.  You can learn about that by listening to this podcast here.

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

No politician who supports gun control should get armed protection paid for by those they are trying to disarm sticker : Rally For Our Rights

(other designs available)

Recalls, Recalls, Recalls! What You Need To Know

After one of the most hyper-partisan elections Colorado has ever witnessed, the 2019 legislative session was one for the history books.  With Governor Jared Polis signing into law 456 new pieces of legislation, including HB19-1177 “Red Flag” Extreme Risk Protection Orders, citizens of the state were left stunned by what had transpired.  And they’re doing something about it through several recalls that are in the works.

Here’s what you need to know about them:

Recall Governor Jared Polis

The Recall Polis campaign is a mighty feat, and if you were paying attention on social media when it launched, you know it got off to a rocky start with three recall groups struggling to work together.  Although the dust has settled on the latter issue, the recall is still a huge task. That said, I’ve been impressed with the pure energy and grassroots effort that it has become.  In all corners of the state and along the front range, hundreds of volunteers are setting up signing locations and dedicating their summer to get this done.  They will need to collect 631,000 valid signatures by September 7th for the recall to move forward.  If they succeed, a special election will take place in which voters will be asked if they want to recall the governor; and a second question asking if the governor is recalled, who they would want to replace him.  I’ve heard very little about possible candidates, so I suppose we’ll cross that bridge if we get there.

The initial conflict of the Recall Polis campaigns had some people believing the petitions were fake or that if they signed it, they would lose their opportunity to sign the “real” petition.  I have no opinions about the groups involved, but what I do know is the petition being circulated is legit and is the only Recall Polis petition available.  The group has said if they do not collect enough signatures in the time allotted they will not turn them in, which means any other group could start another recall and anyone who already signed would be able to sign again.

There are hundreds of signing locations available daily all over the state.  To find signing locations click here.

Recall State Senator Pete Lee

State Senator Pete Lee also has an active recall. Lee sits in El Paso county’s SD-11 which encompasses Central and West Colorado Springs, Down Town, The Older part of Colorado Springs By Colorado College, Manitou Springs, Old Colorado City and more. This is also the same seat State Senator John Morse was recalled from in 2013 after he supported a package of gun control bills.  Senator Pete Lee was a strong proponent of HB19-1177 “Red Flag” ERPO during the 2019 legislative session, even after the local newspaper encouraged him to vote with his constituents and not his party. It’s a little more difficult to find recall signing locations for Lee, but more information and a contact form can be found here.  I’ve also been told petitions are available at Specialty Sports & Supply (4285 E Fountain Blvd, Colorado Springs, CO 80916) from 3 – 5pm M-F, or Western Insurance Solutions (4740 Flintridge Dr, Colorado Springs, CO 80918) from 9am – 5pm M-F.

Recall State Senator Brittany Pettersen

State Senator Brittany Pettersen was not only a supporter of Colorado’s “Red Flag” legislation, she sponsored it.  And now there is an active recall against her.  She sits in SD22, which encompasses part of Jefferson County. The number of times she mocked the concerns of gun owners was simply shocking – even abused women who spoke of their fear an abuser could legally disarm them through the red flag law.  She is quoted as saying “This bill is not about mental health, it is about taking away guns.”  Finding information about the signing locations for her recall has proven to be difficult, as most petitioners are going door to door.  If you are in her district and want to sign or carry a petition, I’d suggest using the contact form on this webpage.

Recall Douglas County Sheriff Tony Spurlock

Republican Sheriff of Douglas County, Tony Spurlock, led the path for HB19-1177 “Red Flag” ERPO.  The bill is named after a deputy of his, Zackari Parrish, who died in the line of duty.  The bill is supposed to prevent situations like the one Deputy Parrish walked into from happening, but instead it created a disaster that will not only put law enforcement in harms way, but citizens too.  Sheriff Tony Spurlock helped pass a law that was opposed by over 50 of Colorado’s 64 sheriffs along with the Denver and Aurora Police Unions because they know how dangerous it is to those in the line of duty.  The law is grossly unconstitutional, violating multiple rights of citizens.  And Spurlock worked hand in hand with Moms Demand Action, Bloomberg’s well funded astroturf arm of Everytown for Gun Safety, to pass it into law.  Spurlock needs to go.  A well organized effort is underway to recall him with petitions expected to drop by September.  Organizers are asking those anxious to sign to be patient, as they have a plan – and they do.  If you are in DougCo and want to sign a petition, you can pre-register here.  You can also sign up to volunteer and/or make a donation at www.recallspurlock.org.  Follow the effort on Facebook here.

What is a valid signature?

A valid signature is from a Colorado voter who is registered to vote in the district of the recall, or for the Recall Polis any Colorado resident who is registered to vote in the state.  When signing, their name, address, and signature must match that of their voter registration.  It is important that nicknames aren’t used, and that if the voter has moved recently, they use the address where they are registered to vote on the date they are signing.  If they have recently moved to the recall district, they will need to update their voter registration with their new address before signing the petition.

CLICK HERE to check your voter registration and/or make changes.
CLICK HERE to register to vote.

Everyone has differing opinions on recalls.  My opinion is simple. If you support the effort, sign the petition.  If you don’t support it, don’t sign it.  

STEM School Demands $4,210 For CORA Requested Emails With Moms Demand Action & Brady Campaign

In Colorado we’re fortunate to have the Colorado Open Records Act (CORA) law.  This allows citizens such as myself to request to see communications by almost any government entity.  There are specific laws surrounding how CORAs work, how long government entities can take to return the requested communications, and how much they can charge you.  Obviously, the more data you request, the longer it will take and the higher the cost.

On Tuesday, May 7th, two mentally disturbed students of STEM School Highlands Ranch broke into one of their parents gun safes with an ax and a crow bar, placed the stolen guns in a guitar case, attempted to burn the house down, and went to the high school where they walked inside and opened fire in two separate areas.  Both students were taken down, one of them by a security guard, the other by a student named Kendrick Castillo.  Kendrick was a role model of a citizen who lost his life defending the lives of his friends and classmates that day.  And as usual, the gun grabbers and heartless politicians didn’t bat an eye – instead they went right into campaign mode.  A “vigil” for Kendrick was planned and thousands from the community attended.  What those in attendance did not know was that this vigil was actually planned by two organizations: Brady Campaign and Moms Demand Action. For a solid 40 minutes, attendees patiently watched as politician after politician took to the podium to lecture the crowd about gun control.  Gun control advocates, such as Laura Reeves with Moms Demand Action Colorado brazenly used the tragedy to push the organizations agenda of disarming citizens. It wasn’t until the president of the Douglas County Teacher’s Union, Kallie Leyba took to lecturing the crowd that it became apparent that not one single student or teacher from STEM School had been invited to speak.  That’s when all hell broke loose as students began to yell “Let the students speak!” eventually walking out while chanting “Mental health! Mental health!”.  Even the anti-gun website The Daily Beast covered the story exposing it for what it was: a political stunt.

Well, in light of this gross abuse of power by the Brady Campaign, Moms Demand Action and some school staff, a watchdog group of out Illinois decided to file a CORA request.  It was a simple request: They asked for the communications between Brady Campaign and any school officials, as well as Moms Demand Action and any school officials, that took place on May 7 and May 8.  

The response was telling, to say the least. The school is claiming this simple request, which other government entities do all the time for us here at Rally for our Rights in less than an hour, will take 7 hours of school staff time at $30/hr and 26 hours of legal counsel time at $155/hr, for total cost to the requester of at least $4,210. 

But according to Colorado law, they can’t do charge more than $30/hr for legal counsel.  Source: https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/dora/open-records-cora-requests

 

 

Here is the letter from STEM School Highlands Ranch in response to these CORA requests.

 

STEM School Hides Information After Shooting STEM School Hides Information After Shooting

 

Pueblo, CO City Council SHUTS DOWN Public Comment On SECOND AMENDMENT SANCTUARY Resolution

pueblo city council denies attendees to speak on second amendment rally for our rights

In March, during the heart of the “Red Flag” ERPO debate, Pueblo City Council Member Mark Aliff announced he would be presenting a Second Amendment Sanctuary resolution at the March 25th regularly scheduled council meeting.  This was on the heels of over half the counties in Colorado adopting similar resolutions, as well as many municipalities, in response to a poorly written and downright dangerous piece of legislation Democrats in the Colorado legislature were considering – HB19-1177 “Red Flag” Emergency Risk Protection Orders ERPOs.  This bill did pass by one vote with all Republicans and three Pueblo Democrats voting against it. It is awaiting the governor’s signature.

I attended the Pueblo City Council Meeting with friends from Pueblo, and I witnessed first hand a gross abuse of power via manipulation of standard protocol, effectively silencing those who were there to speak on the resolution.  It was blatantly obvious this was planned prior to the meeting and I have submitted a Colorado Open Records Act (CORA) request with the city to find exactly what went down.

Here’s a synopsis of how the meeting went:

• The announcement of the resolution came approx one week prior to the meeting.  Communication with the council member presenting the resolution told us comment on the resolution would be taken during general public comment at the beginning of the meeting.  This is standard for anything unless it is a specific hearing on an ordinance, as is outlined in council rules.

• Upon arrival, it was discovered public comment on this topic only was moved to later in the meeting when the resolution would be be discussed.  A separate sign up was used for this one topic, and anyone who had signed up for public comment on this topic was reserved to include with the others.

• In the past if public comment was to be taken at the time the resolution is presented, that comment is given PRIOR to the motion being moved.  In this case, they moved the motion first, then asked for a second, which didn’t come and the council president found that as terms for denial of the resolution that no one had been allowed to speak to!  This is unbelievable, as the job of city council is to act on behalf of the citizens. If they do not even allow citizens to speak, they cannot and do not represent them.

• Many people in attendance were angry.  Everyone left the room where local media interviewed people from both sides of the issue.  After attendees left, the council continued to discuss what had just happened, with the main discussion participants being the city attorney, council president Dennis Flores, and the council member who put forth the resolution, Mark Aliff.

Watch the video for yourself to see how despicable these antics were, then scroll down to learn what you can do.

Here’s what you can do:

Attend the next city council meeting and sign up to speak during public comment.  Let them know EXACTLY what you think of this power move.

Monday, April 8th, 7:00pm
1 City Hall Place
3rd Floor
Pueblo, CO 81003

Contact all city council members by email and phone.

Bob Schilling
719-250-4520
[email protected]

Larry Antencio
719-248-9141
[email protected]

Ed Brown
719-671-7450
[email protected]

Ray Aguilera
719-415-0400
[email protected]

Dennis Flores
719-406-9852
[email protected]

Chris Nicol
719-924-5449
[email protected]

No time to contact them all individually?  Copy/paste this email list and send your email to them all!

[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

Get connected with Rally for our Rights on social media and donate to help keep up going and growing.

Red Flag ERPO Bill Passes Colorado State Senate BY ONE VOTE!

ERPO Red Flag Passes Colorado Senate Rally for our Rights

HB19-1177 “Red Flag” Emergency Risk Protection Orders ERPO bill just passed the Colorado state senate by ONE VOTE! 18-17.

All Republicans and one Democrat voted against it in the Senate. It has already passed the House with all Republicans and two Democrats voting NO. Because it does have Senate amendments, it will go back to the house to vote on those amendments before making it’s way to the governor’s desk.

From here, I’ll be working with law enforcement across the state to put pressure on Governor Polis to either veto the bill, or send it back to the legislature for re-consideration. This effort will be BIG! How privileged are those lawmakers to pass law they will never have to enforce, while those who will have to enforce it are saying NO. I will also be working with the sheriffs to request an injunction that would prevent it from becoming law (if signed, it would officially become law on Jan 1, 2020).  Pledge your support for recalls here!

CONTACT GOVERNOR JARED POLIS AND ASK HIM TO VETO HB19-1177!

Phone: 303-866-2471
Online Contact: www.colorado.gov/governor/share-your-comments
Facebook: www.facebook.com/PolisForColorado

Just like all of you, I’m furious. This piece of legislation is unbelievably bad. Although I will say in this current hyper-partisan body of government, I am proud of how far we have pushed this narrative, that votes were tough to get, and that Democrats crossed party lines in opposition, right down to it passing by a single vote. We are setting brushfires and this vote has only fueled those fires. We’re just getting started.

Feel free to use this post as a place to sound off. Let us know what you’d like to see next. We have a big event in the works that we’ve been waiting to announce based on this vote. Details coming soon on that.

In Freedom,
Lesley Hollywood, Rally For Our Rights Founder

ERPO Red Flag Passes Colorado Senate Rally for our Rights