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

[MachIVshooter]

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

RKBA is not a straight right, a gay right, a white right, a black right or a right otherwise specific to a particular group; It is a HUMAN right. People of all races, ethnicities, religions or sexual orientations are HUMANS (except for politicians; they are something less), and have the right to defend themselves with the most effective means.

 

[joeschmoe]

Any ammo against the anit's is good. Especially when it's thier own brand. That's +2.

 

[GEM]

Great OP - Justin. The violation of rights in the gun panic are stunning.

There is a similar horror in the violation of patient / mental health professional relationships in the NY SAFE act. Also, the University of Iowa is violating FERPA to report students they don't like to the law if they have concealed permits.

Civil rights go out the window if there is a vivid instance.

 

[feedthehogs]

All they will do is amend the ubc if civil unions are made legal.

Since the socially liberal types here are preaching rights for all, what about the rights two life long friends have and who probably know each other better than most married couples not being able to gift a gun without a ubc?

Don't get distracted by a squirrel running across the road.
The whole damn thing needs to be tossed out.

 

[C.F. Plinker]

The section Justin quoted above pertains to BONA-FIDE GIFTS; however, the scenerio that was described implies that the transfer would not be permanent and thus would not meet this section of the bill.

Perhaps another method of complying (if you want to comply) would be to use this section.

(d) A TRANSFER THAT IS TEMPORARY AND OCCURS WHILE IN THE
12 HOME OF THE UNLICENSED TRANSFEREE IF:
13 (I) THE UNLICENSED TRANSFEREE IS NOT PROHIBITED FROM
14 POSSESSING FIREARMS; AND
15 (II) THE UNLICENSED TRANSFEREE REASONABLY BELIEVES THAT
16 POSSESSION OF THE FIREARM IS NECESSARY TO PREVENT IMMINENT DEATH
17 OR SERIOUS BODILY INJURY TO THE UNLICENSED TRANSFEREE;


18 (e) THE TRANSFER IS A TEMPORARY TRANSFER OF POSSESSION
19 WITHOUT TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP OR A TITLE TO OWNERSHIP, WHICH
20 TRANSFER TAKES PLACE:
21 (I) AT A SHOOTING RANGE LOCATED IN OR ON PREMISES OWNED OR
22 OCCUPIED BY A DULY INCORPORATED ORGANIZATION ORGANIZED FOR
23 CONSERVATION PURPOSES OR TO FOSTER PROFICIENCY IN FIREARMS;
24 (II) AT A TARGET FIREARM SHOOTING COMPETITION UNDER THE
25 AUSPICES OF, OR APPROVED BY, A STATE AGENCY OR A NONPROFIT
26 ORGANIZATION; OR
27 (III) WHILE HUNTING, FISHING, TARGET SHOOTING, OR TRAPPING
1 IF:
2 (A) THE HUNTING, FISHING, TARGET SHOOTING, OR TRAPPING IS
3 LEGAL IN ALL PLACES WHERE THE UNLICENSED TRANSFEREE POSSESSES
4 THE FIREARM; AND
5 (B) THE UNLICENSED TRANSFEREE HOLDS ANY LICENSE OR PERMIT
6 THAT IS REQUIRED FOR SUCH HUNTING, FISHING, TARGET SHOOTING, OR
7 TRAPPING; OR

These sections do not require any defined relationship between the individuals and, because the transfer it temporary, would seemingly allow the firearm to be transferred back without the need for a background check.

However, these sections would not give any reason for striking down the law as proposed. Carry On.

 

[ATLDave]

feedthehogs, of course those of us "preaching rights for all" don't like the bill. This is about one specific argument about the bill, not a compherensive list of ALL the things wrong with it.

One of the most common sources of bad laws is a failure of immagination on the part of lawmakers to envision a terribly unfair scenario that will certainly arise if the law goes through. If you can present such a scenario to a lawmaker, sometimes you can get them to see things differently. But the scenario usually has to be striking, beyond what they consciously intended, and likely. Two good friends swapping guns? Those who like gun control already think that shouldn't be happening. But two partners who live together running afoul of the law because their particular partnership is not legally recognized? You might get some people with that.

Everyone who already thinks the whole thing is bad doesn't need convincing. New arguments, or new presentations of older arguments, are needed to get people to change their minds. There's no point preaching to the choir.

 

[joeschmoe]

All they will do is amend the ubc if civil unions are made legal.

Since the socially liberal types here are preaching rights for all, what about the rights two life long friends have and who probably know each other better than most married couples not being able to gift a gun without a ubc?

Don't get distracted by a squirrel running across the road.
The whole damn thing needs to be tossed out.

The idea is to get them to trip on thier own tail trying to cross the road. Have thier own base of supporters tell them to stop. They won't listen to us, but they will listen to thier own base.

 

[JShirley]

THR is about bringing lawful gun owners together, regardless of religion, political affiliation, sex, or orientation. That is why we don't allow posts that attack any of those things, because we focus on what brings us together, not the many things we can choose to let divide us.

Any ammunition that assists in letting us stop bad legislation is good. Any loosening of restrictions on lawful gun owners is good.

John

 

[hso]

The point is that there is a weakness in the law that can be exploited. Any weakness should be exploited to kill this poisonous legislation.

If you do or don't like a particular group it is best to remember that we're not interested in the group itself, but in the blind spot that the Antis left for us to exploit.

Don't let you feelings interfere with using your intellect to fight these pieces of legislation.

 

[browneu]

The point is brilliant. It should be exploited showing the hypocrisy of the left.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2

 

[joeschmoe]

The section Justin quoted above pertains to BONA-FIDE GIFTS; however, the scenerio that was described implies that the transfer would not be permanent and thus would not meet this section of the bill.

...

These sections do not require any defined relationship between the individuals and, because the transfer it temporary, would seemingly allow the firearm to be transferred back without the need for a background check.

However, these sections would not give any reason for striking down the law as proposed. Carry On.

One of the biggest complaints from gays who want marriage laws is they cannot pass property when one dies or becomes incapacitated/incompetent. If the owner has a stroke, the partner can be kicked out of the house they have shared for decades and has no legal claim on the others property. The state usually takes everything. Even if there is a will stating otherwise. Eventually if property is passed taxes must be paid as if you bought it for market value.

I know of several gay couples who are in this situation (one is terminally ill and will probably become incompetent before she dies).

 

[1911Tuner]

As a matter of law, unmarried cohabiting straight couples are subject to the same guidelines.

F'rinstance, I've lived with SWMBO for nearly 17 years. Whenever I'm away, she has full access to a loaded gun or three.

Seeing that:

A. She isn't a prohibited person and
B. It's not technically a transfer of ownership, and
B. There are no minor children afoot...

Should an unwanted caller force his way in, and she shot him with one of my guns...I really don't see the letter of the law being strictly enforced. In fact, in my county of residence, it's unlikely that the matter would even come up.

 

[C.F. Plinker]

As a matter of law, unmarried cohabiting straight couples are subject to the same guidelines.

F'rinstance, I've lived with SWMBO for nearly 17 years. Whenever I'm away, she has full access to a loaded gun or three.

Seeing that:

A. She isn't a prohibited person and
B. It's not technically a transfer of ownership, and
B. There are no minor children afoot...

Should an unwanted caller force his way in, and she shot him with one of my guns...I really don't see the letter of the law being strictly enforced. In fact, in my county of residence, it's unlikely that the matter would even come up.

The proposed Colorado law would require a background check on any transfer of possession which does not meet one of the 6 exceptions not just on transfers of ownership. This can be a big difference.

4 18-12-112. Private firearms transfers - background check
5 required - penalty. (1) EXCEPT AS DESCRIBED IN SUBSECTION (6) OF THIS
6 SECTION, BEFORE ANY PERSON WHO IS NOT A LICENSED GUN DEALER, AS
7 DEFINED IN SECTION 12-26.1-106 (6), C.R.S., TRANSFERS OR ATTEMPTS TO
8 TRANSFER POSSESSION OF A FIREARM, HE OR SHE SHALL:

The inclusion of temporary transfers of possession where transfer of title is not involved within some of the bills exceptions shows that the bill applies to more that transfers involving a change of ownership.

 

[Inebriated]

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.

You would think that, for sure. But... I'm growing increasingly positive that the general structure of the democratic party is not to help people, it's to essentially force their dependence on the government. I do not believe that is recognized by many Democrats, though.

EDIT - More on topic, though... Is anyone trying to bring attention to this in a more organized fashion?

 

[Deanimator]

There is absolutely NOTHING in the world wrong with using somebody's own supposed ideology against him.

Socially, I'm very liberal and won't HESITATE to point out the hypocrisy of "liberals" who are willing to pitch every OTHER belief they might claim to have in order to create a government monopoly on the means of armed force.

Harping on this, as well as the galloping misogyny of the anti-gun side is part of a winning strategy.

 

[beatledog7]

So, if I want to transfer a gun to a woman in CO and avoid the BC, all I have to do is marry her?

What a deal!

 

[Creature]

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

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

How is it that a moderator and another member are both quoting someone's statement...that does not appear anywhere in this thread?

 

[natman]

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.

You don't often read arguments in favor of gay marriage in gun forums, but I respect your candor in making one.

 

[PedalBiker]

It is also a fact that this gun bill is going to force rural residents to DRIVE a lot of extra miles just to find an FFL to do the transfer. This wastes gas, places lives at risk and harms the environment.

I live in town and bike a lot, however, gun laws discriminate against cyclists as well. There are exemptions for firearms in cars, but not for one in my backpack on my bike. So even for urban residents the background check bill will require more driving.

 

[Torian]

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.

Nice catch.

 

[Fred_G]

Interesting thread. I think we (2A supporters) need to learn to use liberals tactics against them. Also, using liberal tactics to get people to oppose a bill does not have to be legally correct, think how often liberals want something passed 'for the children', or if you oppose an environmental bill, you somehow 'want dirty air and water'.

 

[BullfrogKen]

I'm all for pointing out instances where pointy-headed politicians who think they can write perfect laws trip over their own idealogy in their haste to do it.


Colorado may eventually pass a gay marriage act. So, how's this law supposed to work when the US gov't won't recognize it? This will eventually work it's way into the Federal courts to be settled once and all, at which point this law fails to account for those couples.


Go get' em, Justin.