Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

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

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by Justin, Feb 22, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Justin

    Justin Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    19,285
    Location:
    THE CHAIR IS AGAINST THE WALL
    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:

    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.
     
  2. sota

    sota Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2012
    Messages:
    447
    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.
     
  3. Akita1

    Akita1 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2013
    Messages:
    857
    Location:
    Hell (FL)
    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.
     
    Last edited: Feb 22, 2013
  4. sidheshooter

    sidheshooter Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2007
    Messages:
    1,963
    Location:
    NW
    Justin's got his thinking cap on today. Good job.
     
  5. Justin

    Justin Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    19,285
    Location:
    THE CHAIR IS AGAINST THE WALL
    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.

    Once in awhile I actually have a decent idea.
     
  6. Inebriated

    Inebriated Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2011
    Messages:
    3,683
    Location:
    NC
    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.
     
  7. Justin

    Justin Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    19,285
    Location:
    THE CHAIR IS AGAINST THE WALL
    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.
     
  8. MachIVshooter

    MachIVshooter Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Messages:
    14,467
    Location:
    Elbert County, CO
    The state doesn't prohibit it, but does not recognize it (yet)

    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.
     
  9. mrvco

    mrvco Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2011
    Messages:
    697
    Location:
    Colorado
    The Senate passed the Civil Union bill. Now it's waiting on the House.
     
  10. JohnBT

    JohnBT Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    13,233
    Location:
    Richmond, Virginia
    " 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.
     
  11. Justin

    Justin Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    19,285
    Location:
    THE CHAIR IS AGAINST THE WALL
    Yes, I meant straight married couples.
     
  12. MachIVshooter

    MachIVshooter Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Messages:
    14,467
    Location:
    Elbert County, CO
    It says "spouse". Usually pretty narrowly defined as a licensed marriage when it comes to the law.
     
  13. CoRoMo

    CoRoMo Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2007
    Messages:
    8,947
    Location:
    Californicated Colorado
    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.
     
  14. DeepSouth

    DeepSouth Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2009
    Messages:
    3,182
    Location:
    Heart of Dixie
    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.
     
  15. Justin

    Justin Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    19,285
    Location:
    THE CHAIR IS AGAINST THE WALL
    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.

    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.
     
  16. CoRoMo

    CoRoMo Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2007
    Messages:
    8,947
    Location:
    Californicated Colorado
    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.
     
  17. nazshooter

    nazshooter Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2011
    Messages:
    123
    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
     
  18. ATLDave

    ATLDave Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2011
    Messages:
    3,464
    I think it's a very good point, Justin.
     
  19. Coop45

    Coop45 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    803
    Location:
    Texas
    Good thinking Justin.
     
  20. nazshooter

    nazshooter Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2011
    Messages:
    123
    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
     
  21. Arbo

    Arbo Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2013
    Messages:
    290
    Location:
    Colorado
    Good catch. This sort of thing should be blasted out on gay rights sites... show them how the (D)'s stand against them (again)...
     
  22. sota

    sota Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2012
    Messages:
    447
    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.
     
  23. sota

    sota Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2012
    Messages:
    447
    Water-Man....

    The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

    I'll leave that as it is.
     
  24. CoRoMo

    CoRoMo Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2007
    Messages:
    8,947
    Location:
    Californicated Colorado
    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.
     
  25. rbernie
    • Contributing Member

    rbernie Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2004
    Messages:
    20,602
    Location:
    Norra Texas
    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.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page