Gun-rights group challenges signatures

O

Oatka

New member
Surprisingly mild for anti-gun Carla. She must be slipping (or maturing).

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/election/0831guns1.shtml

Gun-rights group challenges signatures Dispute centers on when gun show loophole-closing ballot petitions were signed

By Carla Crowder
Denver Rocky Mountain News Staff Writer

Gun-rights activists Wednesday filed another court challenge to Colorado's gun show loophole ballot initiative, charging that most of the signatures gathered to put the measure before voters don't count.

Rocky Mountain Gun Owners members say SAFE Colorado failed to wait for the pro-gun group's earlier court challenges to be resolved before SAFE's signature-gatherers hit the streets. That's a violation of state statute, according to Englewood attorney Paul Grant.

"The statute ... says the petitioning period does not begin until a final decision by the Colorado Supreme Court and the Title Board," Grant said at a news conference on the Capitol steps.

"Anybody who believes they can simply ignore the rules and collect signatures under their own deadline is foolish," he said.

Colorado Secretary of State Donetta Davidson said SAFE Colorado followed her advice on the timeline.

And an attorney for the gun-control group cited Supreme Court decisions from 1993 and 1998 that allow ballot-initiative proponents to start gathering names any time after the last general election.

"Their language was, 'there is no limit to when you can start,"' said Mark Grueskin, an attorney representing SAFE Colorado.

He called the complaint a "frivolous technicality" with no basis in statute or case law.

"The purpose of this complaint is to divert the issue and delay an election," Grueskin said.

Wednesday's challenge was filed in Denver District Court. It marks the latest in a series of efforts by gun-rights activists to keep voters from determining whether background checks must be conducted at gun shows.

Supporters of the initiative say gun shows are a magnet for criminals and juveniles who want to buy guns. Unlicensed sellers flock to the shows, where current law allows them to sell guns without checking the buyers' backgrounds.

Opponents, such as Rocky Mountain Gun Owners and the National Rifle Association, argue that the government should not intrude on gun sales between private parties.

SAFE Colorado, the gun-control group working to put the question before voters in November, began circulating petitions May 3. The group was formed in response to the killings at Columbine High School. The four guns used to kill 15 people at the school came from gun shows.

Once a challenge goes to the Supreme Court, the Secretary of State's office tells proponents of a ballot measure they can go ahead and gather signatures, Davidson said.

If the Supreme Court changes anything, such as the ballot title describing the proposal to voters or the initiative's language, the signatures are thrown out.

"They did not change a thing on this one," Davidson said.

In such cases, "We've always accepted (the signatures)," she said.

Earlier this month, Davidson counted a random sample of SAFE's signatures and found that 85,438 were valid, giving SAFE wiggle room of about 20,000 names over the required number of valid signatures.

Ari Armstrong, research director for the Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, said his group's analysis found only 17,778 signatures were valid, because most voters signed the petitions before July 3 — the date the Supreme Court approved the initiative.

The challenge could drag out for weeks. Both sides said they expect a September hearing in Denver District Court. An automatic appeal to the Supreme Court will follow.

Contact Carla Crowder at (303) 892-2742 or crowderc@RockyMountainNews.com.

© Copyright, Denver Publishing Co.




------------------
"The night is nearly over; the day is almost here. So let us put aside
the deeds of darkness and put on the armor of light." (Romans 13:12)
 
Two not so quick e-mails forwarded to me that address this issue.

First from RMGO - the seond from Ari Armstrong .... my comments on this later - it's getting busy. ;)

"The Colorado Freedom Report--www.co-freedom.com

S.A.F.E. Challenge Filed

by Ari Armstrong, August 30, 2000

Today Paul Grant, an attorney, Dudley Brown of Rocky Mountain Gun Owners (CO state GOA affiliate - labgrade), and I lodged a
court challenge today against the initiative that would expand background registration checks to private sales at gun shows. The initiative is sponsored by the anti-gun lobby group Sane Alternatives to the
Firearms Epidemic, the name of which likens gun ownership to a disease.

S.A.F.E. collected the majority of its signatures prior to the legal starting date, which was July 3, the date of the final Supreme Court ruling. Colorado statues, section 1-40-107(4) states: "No petition for any initiative measure shall be circulated nor any signature thereto have any force or effect which has been signed before the
titles and submission clause have been fixed and determined..."

Any signatures collected prior to the final
determination of the Supreme Court (in this case July 3) are invalid. The Secretary of State's office warned S.A.F.E. that premature signatures could be ruled invalid.

On August 15-17, I organized a group of
volunteers to examine the S.A.F.E. petitions at the Secretary of State's office. (The staff of that office was consistently professional, courteous, and helpful -- a model for other government employees.) The group of volunteers consisted of RMGO members Dick Jones, Dan Morris, and Doug Fox; Libertarian Party members Thomas
Parker, David Bryant, and BetteRose Smith; and me. (I am a member of both organizations.) We were surprised to find that S.A.F.E. had collected such a large number of their signatures illegally.

After examining all 5,024 petitions (10,048 pages of signatures), we found that 85,564 of the signatures out of the total of 108,530 were collected prior to July 3. That means 22,966 signatures were collected within the valid time frame.

Of those signatures, some are invalid for other reasons. The Secretary of State's office conducted a random sample of 5,433 names, information we obtained from the office, and found a 22 percent invalidity rate for other reasons. Of the names in the random sample pool, only 890 valid names were collected during the legal time period. Based on that percentage, only 17,778 of
the signatures are projected to be valid. S.A.F.E. needed 62,438 valid signatures in order to make the ballot.

The lawyer for S.A.F.E. argues that, if the
Supreme Court rules in our favor, that will give challengers the advantage because they can push back the petition gathering date with legal challenges. However, this claim makes light of the importance of having initiatives with clear language that accurately describes its purpose. If the Supreme Court rules with S.A.F.E. that will
mean the starting date for collecting signatures would only be known retroactively. Obviously, if the language of a petition changed, only signatures collected under the new language would be valid. If the starting date for gathering
signatures were determined retroactively, this would give the advantage to petitions favored by the political biases of judges. Judges who didn't like a particular initiative could invalidate early
signatures by requiring minor changes. In
addition, the Court could intentionally delay a ruling in order to defeat initiatives the judges didn't like.

By rights, we will win the legal challenge.
However, court decisions are sometimes based
on politics as much as on the law. Should we lose this legal challenge, we will continue to fight the S.A.F.E. initiative.

Two independent, national studies -- one by Yale scholar John Lott, Jr. and one published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (a generally ant-gun publication) -- found that the national background check system fails to reduce
crime. That comes as no surprise; criminals can get their guns through theft or the black market. Further, Lott's study found national background registrations caused an increase in rape of 3.6 percent.

Why is that? Because of incomplete and
inaccurate records, usually it's lawful citizens who are wrongfully denied their right to purchase a firearm for self-defense. Unfortunately, rapists and stalkers don't wait around for the paperwork to
clear before they attack.

During a 7 News interview today at 5:00 pm,
S.A.F.E. co-founder John Head asserted, "They're arguing that criminals have a Constitutional right to own a gun." That's simply a lie. Criminals are already prohibited from owning guns. My argument has always been that background registration checks wrongfully deny lawful citizens, and thereby empower criminals. John Head knows that -- I've explained it to him personally. So he consciously lied in his TV interview in order to misrepresent my views and deceive the voters.. Unfortunately, the 7 News story never offered the counter-argument to Head's misstatement, it gave S.A.F.E. significantly more airtime, and it failed to include comments by Paul Grant.

The S.A.F.E. initiative violates the right of
self-defense as well as the right of due process. When the Colorado Bureau of Investigation wrongfully denies a law-abiding citizen his or her right to purchase a firearm, it is then up to that person to demonstrate innocence to the CBI. Since when is the presumption of guilt the
standard of American law?

There are some more technical problems with the gun show initiative. It defines a gun show as three or more persons who transfer firearms. For example, if you, your mother, and your grandfather get in a room, trade firearms in a circle, and go home, you are all criminals. Police and prosecutors don't need more arbitrary power to harass peaceable citizens.

Speaking of police powers, during the morning's press conference, Denver police officers and John Rosen of the State Patrol took surveillance photographs of RMGO members. Why? We asked Rosen, and he said he wanted to know who we were. Funny; I don't recall Rosen taking photographs of S.A.F.E. members at their press conferences. It is inappropriate behavior in any case. When we asked Rosen what is the value of such photographs for police enforcement, he was
unable to give a coherent answer. Perhaps that is because there is no such value.

Whether we win or lose in court, it is important that Colorado civil rights advocates fight the S.A.F.E. initiative until it is defeated. Handgun Control Inc.,
perhaps the most prominent anti-civil rights group in America, gave Colorado a "D+" for passing laws restricting gun ownership. In other words, we're doing a decent job of protecting the civil right of self-defense. But we can do better! Next time, let's shoot for an HCI "F," because that will mean we have stopped the gun grabbers' agenda and restored the right to bear arms.

... and ...

"SAFE v CIVIL RIGHTS, ROUND TWO: PUBLIC EDUCATION

Friends,

Thanks to you, Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, attorney Paul Grant, and Libertarian volunteers, SAFE is on the run. We have an excellent chance of upholding the rule of law and the Constitution by removing the SAFE
initiative from the ballot through our legal challenge. In addition, the challenge has given us the opportunity to take our message to the voters.

NOW IS THE TIME TO REDOUBLE OUR EFFORTS!

You need to write a letter to the editor explaining why the SAFE initiative is a bad idea, won't work, and violates civil rights. Remember that papers sometimes get upset if you submit the same letter to multiple papers, so please write a unique letter to each publication. In addition, you need to call in to talk shows about this issue.

With the legal suit, we must hope for the best, but prepare for the worst. We have the momentum NOW. So you need to take further action now to help ducate the voters and those who might be ready to join our movement. Most eople don't understand the SAFE initiative. We need to help them
understand.

We're in the battle for our rights for the long haul. Win or lose, our fforts to fight SAFE now will help us build our movement for the future. 're going to lose some of the battles. But if we stand undaunted and
proclaim to the world that WE WILL NOT TAKE TYRANNY LYING DOWN, that we ill not stand idly by as our civil freedoms slip from our grasp, we have a ood chance of ultimate victory.

Please send out letters to the editor, including contact information for RMGO or the LP. Please support these organizations. And please work to elect politicians who understand our rights are not subject to negotiation.

Below are some points you might keep in mind and adapt to your own writing style as you take this issue to the streets.

CONSTITUTION MONDAY IS COMING: OCTOBER 2

Free Colorado!
Ari Armstrong

****
A MESSAGE FROM PAUL GRANT

A Message from Paul Grant:

SAFE says opponents of the initiative want criminals to be able to buy guns.

Actually, SAFE presumes that everyone who wants to buy a gun is a criminal. If the initiative becomes law, only those who can prove to the gov't that they are not criminals will be allowed to exercise their right to buy a gun.

RMGO presumes that everyone walking around free is free, and can exercise their rights without asking anyone's permission.

The right to bear arms is not a right if you have to ask the government for permission to exercise it.

SAFE is following the lead of Congress, which a few years ago passed a law requiring that anyone getting hired in America must first prove to the employer that they have the right to work.

SAFE is following the logic of the old Soviet Union, which required citizens to have internal passports to authorize them to be in whatever state they were in. Only certain people, for instance, would be allowed to be in Moscow. You only had the "right" to be somewhere if the government
gave you permission.

"Papers, please" is the sound you hear in a police state, not a free country.

SAFE says the RMGO challenge to their petition is frivolous and
based on a technicality. SAFE also obviously views the Second Amendment as
a mere tecnicality, as well as Aricle II, Sec. 13 of the Colorado Constitution
(which states that the right to bear arms shall not be called in question), since their initiative conflicts with both.

Paul Grant
liber8@mindspring.com

****

* Statues 1-40-107(4) states: "No petition for any initiative measure shall
be circulated nor any signature thereto have any force or effect which has been signed before the titles and submission clause have been fixed and determined..."

* COLORADO CONSTITUTION

Right to bear arms. The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question... (Article 2,
Section 13) (& actually, to be specific & truthful, the remaining {paraphrased} follows with: " ...but nothing herein shall be construed to allow the carrying of concealed weapons." - labgrade)

All persons have certain natural, essential and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; of acquiring, possessing and protecting property; and of
seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness. (Article 2, Section 3)

Due process of law. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law. (Article 2, Section 25)

******

Criminals love background checks.

Because of incomplete and inaccurate records, background checks prevent law-abiding citizens from purchasing a gun for self-defense.

Background checks don't stop criminals.

Two independent studies show that national background checks have failed to reduce crime. (John Lott, Journal of the American Medical Association)

In fact, a study by Yale scholar John Lott shows that background checks have increased rape by 3.6 percent. Why is that? When a woman is stalked or threatened, background checks often prevent her from purchasing a gun for self-defense. Rapists love gun control.

*****

When background checks wrongfully deny honest citizens their right to purchase a firearm for self-defense, they have to prove themselves innocent to the Colorado Bureau of Investigation. Since when is the presumption of guilt the standard of American justice? SAFE wants to treat us ALL like criminals.

Unfortunately, criminals don't wait around to attack until CBI can process the paperwork of law-abiding citizens.

The SAFE initiative defines a gun show as at least three people who transfer guns. That means you, your mother, and your grandfather get in a room, swap firearms in a circle, and go home. According to the SAFE
initiative, you're all criminals. We shouldn't give police and prosecutors
this kind of arbitrary power to harass peaceable citizens.

*****

(Court challenge :) SAFE is arguing that the legal starting date can only be known retroactively. That means judges can decide which initiatives they want to favor. If judges like an initiative, they will allow early signatures. If judges don't like an initiative, they can require minor changes in the language of an initiative and invalidate early signatures. That's not fair, and it opens the door to abuse.

****

Freedom is not a loophole.

The majority should not be able to violate the civil rights of the minority."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top