(CO) Gun owners to appeal ruling

Oatka

New member
Gun owners to appeal ruling
By The Denver Post

Rocky Mountain Gun Owners will continue to fight to keep the initiative to close the gun-show loophole off November's ballot, its lobbyist said Friday.

Today, the group will appeal a judge's decision to dismiss its challenge that most of the initiative's petition signatures were collected illegally, according to Dudley Brown.

The challenge came from Rocky Mountain Gun Owner member Ari Armstrong, who claimed that most of signatures were collected too early by SAFE Colorado, the group pushing the ballot measure.

According to Armstrong's claims, about 90,000 signatures are invalid. He arrived at his figure by subtracting all the signatures gathered before July 3, the day the Supreme Court ruled against an earlier challenge filed by his organization. Those challenges ranged from technical glitches to complaints that voters won't really grasp what they're being asked to decide.

Armstrong said SAFE Colorado volunteers should have waited until after that court decision to begin their drive.

The city of Boulder's police union has not endorsed anyone for district attorney, despite claims by a candidate that he got the union's backing.

Dave Sanderson, the Republican challenger for DA, sent an e-mail last week saying that Boulder Police Benfit Association president Jerry Babiak endorsed his candidacy over Democratic candidate Mary Keenan. His Web site story was headlined: "Boulder Police Union Endorses Dave Sanderson," according to the union.

Problem is, Babiak recently began a one-year leave of absence from his post. And association president Brad Frederking said Wednesday the group is staying out of the DA's race.

Former association president Babiak may have endorsed Sanderson but the full association has not, Frederking said.

"Any representation, in any manner, that the BPBA has endorsed anyone in this race is incorrect," Frederking said.

The tax slashing proposal authored by Douglas Bruce will get another round of scrutiny at a debate Sept. 26 at the Inverness Hotel.

Amendment 21, to be decided by voters Nov. 7, would cut taxes on income, property, utilities and vehicle purchases by $25 each annually -- taxes that Bruce says are unfair to lower-income folks. Bruce, a Colorado Springs resident and former prosecutor, is a strong opponent of taxes and government. In 1992, he authored the Taxpayers Bill of Rights limiting government spending. Voters approved it.

His current tax-cutting initiative is strongly opposed by Gov. Bill Owens and local governments. Officials from fire departments, libraries and other special districts fear the tax cuts could wipe out their revenues, which are generated from such taxes.

The forum is sponsored by the Denver law firm of Brownstein Hyatt & Farber and is being put on by the South Metro Denver Economic Development Group from 7:30 to 9 a.m. at the hotel, northeast of Interstate 25 and County Line Road.

The group trying to derail Bruce's tax-cutting initiative is revving up - or trying to.

On Friday, "No on Amendment 21" sent notices to businesses, rotary clubs, chambers of commerce and elsewhere saying they'll talk to any group "that will listen." The group, including local governments, businesses and special districts, got started about a month ago but has already raised more than $1 million. Members got help from Gov. Owens this week, when he openly opposed the measure during his monthly radio broadcast and in an address to Denver civic leaders.

Copyright 2000 The Denver Post.
 
Why are we resorting to technicalities as a means of defending our rights. My take would be to get the damn thing on the ballot and then do I676 or whatever on it. If the people of that comminuty want stricter control, then so be it. It is their right as much as it is ours to not want it. What better way to get a final word on the subject.
 
Taz: No, it may be their right to WANT strict gun control as much as it's our right to NOT want it, (Just as it's their right to WANT censorship, an established church, and summary execution without jury trial for assorted offenses.) but they've got absolutely no right to GET strict gun control... Not so long as the RIGHT to keep and bear arms is a RIGHT. If they don't want guns, they don't have to own them, but what other people do in that regard is none of their business. That's what it means to call something a right, after all!

Now, my emotional reaction agrees with you; Don't pussy foot around, just beat down the initiative like I676. But my rational side says that if we can get what we want without the expense, go for it.

------------------
Sic semper tyrannis!
 
One might argue that using legal tricks implies that we are afraid to trust the electorate or the fight.

Go for it. Make the case. Other initiatives
have gone in favor of the RKBA. The MO
CCW was a notable except.

If we can't win in CO, then much rethinking has to be done that is rational, unlike the
revolution threads.
 
"I676?" What did I miss?

& without going into a history lesson here, our alleged rights are not subject to the whim of a majority voye - other wise called mob rule.

Others may disagree, but I'm in favor of using every tactic to prevent further loss of these rights.

Probably 90% of the electorate get their "news" via an uniformed (or completely biased) media. The question is being posed as: "do you want to save kids' lives?"

Who wouldn't vote for that? If this does stay on the ballot, it's a slam-dunk that it will pass.
 
Back
Top