CO TFLers: regarding SB154

[BAB]

Well, SB154, the gun-in-vehicle preemption bill, passed out of the House Judiciary committee today. It's on the move. I have a bit of a problem with this bill, in that I think the preemption language is much too weak. Unless I'm missing something, the following is the section on preemption:

18-12-105.6. Limitation on local ordinances regarding firearms in private vehicles. (1) THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY HEREBY FINDS THAT:

(a) A PERSON CARRYING A WEAPON IN A PRIVATE AUTOMOBILE OR OTHER PRIVATE MEANS OF CONVEYANCE FOR LAWFUL PROTECTION OF
SUCH PERSON’S OR ANOTHER’S PERSON OR PROPERTY, AS PERMITTED IN
SECTIONS 18-12-105 (2) (b) AND 18-12-105.5 (3) (c), MAY TEND TO TRAVEL IN OR THROUGH DIFFERENT COUNTY, CITY AND COUNTY, AND
MUNICIPAL JURISDICTIONS EN ROUTE TO THE PERSON’S DESTINATION;

(b) INCONSISTENT LAWS EXIST IN LOCAL JURISDICTIONS WITH REGARD TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH WEAPONS MAY BE
CARRIED IN AUTOMOBILES AND OTHER PRIVATE MEANS OF CONVEYANCE;

(c) THIS INCONSISTENCY CREATES A CONFUSING PATCHWORK OF LAWS THAT UNFAIRLY SUBJECTS A PERSON WHO LAWFULLY TRAVELS WITH
A WEAPON IN OR THROUGH ONE JURISDICTION TO CRIMINAL PENALTIES BECAUSE HE OR SHE TRAVELS INTO OR THROUGH ANOTHER JURISDICTION;

(d) THIS INCONSISTENCY PLACES CITIZENS IN THE POSITION OF NOT KNOWING WHEN THEY MAY BE VIOLATING LOCAL LAWS WHILE TRAVELING
IN, THROUGH, OR BETWEEN DIFFERENT JURISDICTIONS, AND THEREFORE BEING UNABLE TO AVOID COMMITTING A CRIME.

(2) BASED ON THE FINDINGS SPECIFIED IN SUBSECTION (1) OF THIS SECTION, THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY CONCLUDES THAT THE CARRYING OF
WEAPONS IN PRIVATE AUTOMOBILES OR OTHER PRIVATE MEANS OF CONVEYANCE FOR LAWFUL PROTECTION OF A PERSON’S OR ANOTHER’S
PERSON OR PROPERTY WHILE TRAVELING AS PERMITTED IN SECTIONS 18-12-105 (2) (b) AND 18-12-105.5 (3) (c), IS A MATTER OF STATEWIDE CONCERN.

Okay, so, why does it stop here? Wouldn't a good preemption bill (like the now-dead HB1289) go on to say that because this is a matter of statewide concern, that localities are hereby prohibited from passing their own ordinances if they are stricter than that of the state? All I see here is a declaration of statewide concern, but no actual preemption language. Unless I'm missing something, I see no teeth in this bill.

So, does this make sense? Is this bill worth anything? Am I missing something? I'd like your analysis.

Thanks!

[This message has been edited by BAB (edited March 16, 2000).]

 

[jimpeel]

The antis have been using incrementalism for years. They take a little piece at a time.

It is time we stopped with our "we want it all and we want it now" attitude. Take what you can get and strengthen it later until it is what you wanted in the first place. It takes longer but something beats nothing any day.

------------------
Gun Control: The proposition that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her own panty hose, is more acceptable than allowing that same woman to defend herself with a firearm.

 

[BAB]

jimpeel--

I fully agree. I am not one to subscribe to the "all or nothing, now or never" philosophy. I believe that if our RKBA is to be fully restored, it will likely be done in the same manner as it has been taken away - in bits and pieces. I, too, will take anything I can get.

I'm just asking if others agree with my analysis. I want to make sure I'm interpretting this bill right and that I'm not missing anything important. Either way, I'm still going to push to see this bill go through, unless it's made bad by anti-gun amendments or whatnot.