Clearly, a large number of people who shouldn't have firearms actually apply through the process and obtain firearms.
William Bratton
Common sense firearms laws.
Count me in. There are individuals, and classes of individuals, who should not be permitted to own or possess a firearm. There should be certain situations in which lawful possessors refrain from handling a firearm. And, there are certain types of weapons rightfully prohibited to all but military. This is not an invitation to argue, but serves as a basis for what follows. If you don't agree, I respect that. You know where to find me.
The Colorado Legislature last year, in what might ironically be called their infinite wisdom, changed Colorado law so that municipalities within the state are permitted (read invited) to craft laws more restrictive of gun ownership than that permitted by state law. In essence, they decided that making it easier for Coloradans to inadvertently violate the law by the simple act of driving through a particular town served some larger, inexplicable purpose.
To wit: The city (and county) of Broomfield is considering multiple changes to their ordinances regarding firearms possession, use and purchasing. Some of these changes probably enjoy popular support (having to be 21 to buy a firearm, for example) while others are poorly thought out, contradictory or unwieldy. Briefly:
In one section (9-72-020), it is an offense (punishable by a fine of over $2000, a year in jail or both) to possess a firearm, unless at one's home, place of business or someplace over which they exercise some control. Yes. Broomfield handily notes that it is an affirmative defense if the firearm is unloaded, in a locked container (the trunk of your car is not a locked container). What this means is that if I am (hypothetically, of course) headed for a vacation in the mountains, with several firearms in my vehicle not in locked containers and I drive through Broomfield - I am violating their laws even if it does not violate state law, or the laws of any other jurisdiction through which I've driven, or where I'm headed. In addition, an affirmative defense is raised in court, after a summons has been issued and the firearm seized. This violates a state law prohibiting such laws. Does a car represent property under my control? Broomfield doesn't say, but their ordinance reads "on property." You tell me how a municipal court judge will rule.
But, wait! Section 9-72-140 prohibits open carry, except in a motor vehicle for the purpose, among others, of self defense as permitted under state law (18-12-105.6). That exception, as drafted, only applies to Section 140. So, which is it? Locked container required (020) or in my car (140)? Or, neither? Or, both?
On it's face, Broomfield's expansive requirements for training and/or experience to purchase a firearm is sensible. Let's get into the weeds. If one has been discharged from the military within three years, that is deemed sufficient. Really? I served in the Naval Reserve for five years and was once invited to fire six rounds from a beat up, relic revolver to kill some time during "Knife and Fork School." That was it. But that would qualify (within the three year period) under this ordinance. Others have to prove that their course included deescalation techniques. Like...what?
A training class is otherwise required, having been completed within ten years (if you aren't a cop, a veteran or something), written in "must" language, that has to include instruction on Broomfield's laws, and the so-called Red Flag Law passed within the last few years. I'm an educated man, but how is a training session 9 years ago going to anticipate Broomfield's new laws? A prospective gun purchaser will have to take yet another course.
The penalty for selling a gun to someone without this complicated scheme in place? Two grand and/or a year in jail. So, a cottage industry will grow up teaching gun shops, and cops, how to read Broomfield PD's tea leaves.
But, okay. Broomfield admits that, like other nearby municipalities, they are going to get sued. Splendid. What else could they have spent their money on, for the benefit of their citizens? How about better training for their officers?
Finally, and I acknowledge the following observation is plaintive and fruitless. The state of Colorado has already made officers personally liable for violations of a defendant's constitutional rights, and deprived officers of state protections under the broadly understood concept of qualified immunity. If you were a police officer, would you enforce Broomfield's laws knowing that they anticipated a lawsuit arising from their ordinances? Even if Broomfield suspends enforcement pending the outcome of a lawsuit, like the other jurisdictions... What parts are suspended? Any? All? Do they then become suggestions, guidelines? When the court case is over, and the Colorado Supreme Court issues another of its incomprehensible rulings, would you put into play your life, your fortune and your sacred honor enforcing this hodgepodge of laws?
It makes for a messy patchwork of laws requiring legal gun owners in Colorado to comply with ordinances that are both internally inconsistent and in conflict with the ordinances of jurisdiction with which they border. It unnecessarily makes criminals of citizens who cannot possibly be required to understand what is expected of them.
And, it doesn't address the underlying issue.
No comments:
Post a Comment