The Colorado Universal Background Check Law HB13-1229, Discriminates Against Gays.

[Justin]

So, I've just been reading through the proposed universal background check law here in Colorado.

The law outlines a number of exceptions where a transfer can be legally done without having to go through a background check.

Here's the list of exempted transfers straight from the bill:

3 (b) EXCEPT AS PROHIBITED BY SECTION 18-12-111, A TRANSFER
4 THAT IS A BONA FIDE GIFT BETWEEN IMMEDIATE FAMILY MEMBERS, WHICH
5 ARE LIMITED TO SPOUSES, PARENTS, CHILDREN, SIBLINGS, GRANDPARENTS,
6 AND GRANDCHILDREN;

So, reading through that list of exemptions, it would be legal for me to transfer a gun to my wife for self protection while I'm out of town on a business trip.

However, if a gay man or lesbian were to transfer a gun to his/her partner under the exact same set of circumstances, it would be an illegal transfer without conducting a background check.

Given that the Democratic party has consistently positioned itself as the champion of LGBT issues, I find it highly instructive that they're willing to draw a line of demarcation that essentially says "gay people don't have the same gun right to self defense as straight people."

No matter where you stand on LGBT political issues, no reasonable person would think that such unequal treatment under the law could possibly be fair or just, and regardless of where you personally stand on this issue, the Colorado Democratic party should be called to account for their clearly discriminatory attitude regarding gays and guns.

 

[sota]

I like it. it's a dirty trick to drive a wedge into the measure. and I'm about fighting dirty now. I need to check the rash of NJ bills that just got pushed out of assembly and see if any of them step on LGBT.

 

[Akita1]

Does Colorado already have anti discrimination legislation at the State level for LGBT?

If so, this may not be legally enforceable as drafted because it violates existing statute, your honor.

 

[sidheshooter]

Justin's got his thinking cap on today. Good job.

 

[Justin]

I like it. it's a dirty trick to drive a wedge into the measure. and I'm about fighting dirty now. I need to check the rash of NJ bills that just got pushed out of assembly and see if any of them step on LGBT.

As one of those socially-liberal, fiscally-conservative wacky libertarian types, I've always been in favor of equal rights.

That said, I decided that it was time for the gloves to come off in this debate the night that both Rhonda Fields and John Morse personally told me they would support throwing me in jail for ua year if I were caught with a prohibited magazine.

Justin's got his thinking cap on today. Good job.

Once in awhile I actually have a decent idea.

 

[Inebriated]

1) Is gay marriage legal and practiced in CO?

2) If so, would the significant other not be referred to as a "spouse", just like a straight couple?

Regardless, awesome job with interpretation. I suck at stuff like that lol.

 

[Justin]

Gay marriage is not legal in Colorado.

Colorado does afford some rights to gay couples via civil unions, but I'm not enough of a legal type to parse whether that would be good enough to allow a transfer to occur under the exemption for spouses.

That said, even if it does, I see no harm in asking why the Democrats didn't include an explicit and clear exemption for gays and lesbians no different than it does for straight couples. After all, if the Democrats are truly the party of protecting minorities, you'd think they would have been a bit more explicit in their willingness to speak up on behalf of a group of people who are consistently discriminated against.

 

[MachIVshooter]

1) Is gay marriage legal and practiced in CO?

The state doesn't prohibit it, but does not recognize it (yet)

2) If so, would the significant other not be referred to as a "spouse", just like a straight couple?

Common law has limitations. This is one of them.

That said, with Ferrandino being speaker of the house, I'm sure we'll see the gay marriage issue move along this year. I'm of the same political persuasion as Justin, so it doesn't bother me.

My beef with minorities in politics is that it seems heterosexual white people just have to prove they're not bigoted by voting for the minority candidate. They frequently end up being elected because they are a minority, not because they are the best candidate. That isn't very equal at all.

I think this country would be much better off if we were not allowed to know the race or sexual orientation of the candidates.

 

[mrvco]

The Senate passed the Civil Union bill. Now it's waiting on the House.

 

[JohnBT]

" exemption for gays and lesbians no different than it does for straight couples"

I think you meant straight married couples. Or does the law list live-in straight couples? I don't know, I haven't read it.

 

[Justin]

Yes, I meant straight married couples.

 

[MachIVshooter]

I think you meant straight married couples. Or does the law list live-in straight couples? I don't know, I haven't read it.

It says "spouse". Usually pretty narrowly defined as a licensed marriage when it comes to the law.

 

[CoRoMo]

It was mentioned in another thread that this law also leaves out cousins, in-laws, foster and step-children.

I've always taken a 'backup' rifle when I elk hunt just in case mine or someone's gun is busted or otherwise unusable. I wouldn't be able to loan my backup rifle to my father in-law or my cousin without them first proving to Hickenlooper that they aren't a felon.

 

[DeepSouth]

Buy your proposal, if I had a buddy and I wanted to give him a gun, and I just gave it to him (illegally) when we got caught we could just say we were "partners" at the time. How could we ever get convicted? No One could PROVE we weren't. That's an obvious problem.

If they want the equal rights they can move to a state where they can get "married"
Then they probably can give the other person the gun as a bonus.


Sorry, but the whole arguement sounds like desperation to me.

 

[Justin]

I'd like this Forum to adhere to guns and related equipment and issues and not to gay rights.

Gay people have just as much of a right to exercise their 2nd Amendment liberties as anyone else.

If a law results in a situation that treats the gun rights of one group of people differently than another, then we need to speak up about it, regardless of whether or not you personally have a problem with what they do behind closed doors.

Buy your proposal, if I had a buddy and I wanted to give him a gun, and I just gave it to him (illegally) when we got caught we could just say we were "partners" at the time. How could we ever get convicted? No One could PROVE we weren't. That's an obvious problem.

All I'm doing is pointing out one way in which this law creates an unequal environment. If it's a problem, then the people who are trying to push it through need to be made aware of it and forced to address it.

 

[CoRoMo]

When this website stops advocating for the 2nd Amendment rights for every American regardless of age, socioeconomic status, background, gender, race, etc., I will not be proud to post here.

When this website only shows 2nd Amendment support for the individuals that most resemble the bulk of it's members, count me out.

 

[nazshooter]

I would think that some racial minorities would have a case against UBCs based on disparate impact. I doubt they'd have to work very hard to show that they are denied by NICS at a higher rate than whites. Not to mention it's impossible for them to get the required photo ID (according to some).

Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk 2

 

[ATLDave]

I think it's a very good point, Justin.

 

[Coop45]

Good thinking Justin.

 

[nazshooter]

I'll leave speaking up for them to you Justin and people who think as you do.

Count me out .

No doubt that's how the "buy a shotgun" crowd feels about us. Don't you think we could use their votes?

Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk 2

 

[Arbo]

Good catch. This sort of thing should be blasted out on gay rights sites... show them how the (D)'s stand against them (again)...

 

[sota]

I personally don't care about orentiation or other "factors" related to an individual or group. I just like the fact it's a door left open that a wedge can be driven into. LGBT people can get all in an uproar over the bill because they're excluded. Once they start making noise who knows what other groups will start raising hell. The point is it'll create a distraction around the bill... one that the legislators won't be able to ignore and will have to deal with, and will most likely stimey the bill completely because SOMEONE with some "alternate" lifestyle will be pissed off and will demand reparations. Meanwhile we'll be supporting the people behind the scenes that will work to either kill the bill or stall it for so long that it "expires" for the current legislation session. It's the game the Other Side has played well for years, and it's time we put on out Big Boy pants, get in the mud pit and wrestle it out. It's been clear to me for quite some time that the High Road isn't going to win this day for us. In fact it's what's been killing us. We needed to be following the words of Terry Earwood as relayed to me one day at the track...

Go Ugly Early... it's easier to get her in the truck.

 

[sota]

Water-Man....

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

I'll leave that as it is.

 

[CoRoMo]

It would be disappointing to see this thread drawn off point because someone thinks there are certain people groups whose 2nd Amendment rights are not worth protecting.

 

[rbernie]

Every human being is born with the right to effective self-defense, and that ought not be stripped away until such time as a person demonstrates that they cannot be trusted with that right.

The RKBA knows no party affiliations, holds no gender or race preferences, and should not ever care about things like sexual orientation.

The RKBA is the ultimate in liberal thinking and any efforts to define it narrowly should be vigorously opposed.