TRT in Boulder gets slammed by Sierra Times

E

EricM

New member
http://www.sierratimes.com/mulloy.htm

Another Brick in the Gun Control Wall
By Darrel Mulloy - Published: 01.19.01

On Tuesday, January 16, in the Peoples Republic of Boulder, Colorado, the City Council voted unanimously to make some changes to their gun ordinances. These changes have the effect of hindering the individual from defending himself, and denies minors the right to own either a rifle or a shotgun, thereby making it more difficult for those minors to learn the proper use of firearms.

Fifty-seven of Boulders citizens spoke at the meeting, with the majority speaking out against the ordinance, but in spite of that, the council voted unanimously in favor. The ordinance requires that any firearm being transferred in your vehicle be in a "recognizable carry case", or one that clearly identifies the contents of that case as a firearm. The ordinance also requires that all firearms be kept under lock and key, in the minimum of a locked closet, if there are no children in the home, or in a locked gun safe in the event that there are.

The only good thing to come with this ordinance is that the owner of firearm cannot be held liable if the gun is stolen and used in a crime, as long as they were safely stored before their theft. I am glad to see the owner taken off the hook in the event of a robbery of his property, but I am a little bothered by the requirement of keeping the arms locked up. I see no use for a weapon that is not ready and available for use. It is the responsibility of each and every gun owner to see to it that his children and children that may be in his home are made aware of the dangers of playing with firearms, and if that gun owner chooses to lock up his weapons that is his choice. If that gun owner chooses to keep his weapons more readily accessible, he must understand that there are responsibilities that go along with that choice as well. Being raised in a household where guns were not locked up, and being allowed to not only own, but to be able to purchase my own first gun when I was thirteen, I experienced no in home gun accidents, nor did my cousins who had even easier access to guns. The answer to safety with guns is education in gun use and care, and respect for those guns.

Another thing that troubles me about the Boulder ordinance is something that the City Attorney said. Joe de Raismes while introducing the ordinance said that the safe storage of assault rifles was " a reasonable first step". He later said, to clarify his earlier statement, the proposals were reasonable, though future councils may need to amend them to respond to new kinds of gun violence in the city. If this new ordinance is supposed to make people safer, how can he assume there will be new kinds of gun violence in the city? Sounds like what he meant with the "reasonable first step": statement is what he meant to say, and it is just a first step.

Also, why is it that every time there is a move to infringe on our God given right to keep and bear arms, that some member of the fringe shows up to demonstrate? It was reported in the Denver Rocky Mountain News, where I read this story, that a 64-year-old Boulder resident, dressed in a "Tyranny Response Team" T-shirt, "drew a round of applause when he pledged to resist any laws that interfere with his gun ownership". While I agree with this gentleman, I wonder why he found it necessary to give the news media fodder to make gun owners look like right wing nuts. I guess he could have been wearing cammo!
It seems like whenever there is a rally in support of gun owners rights, the media always homes in on the bearded, potbellied, cammo clad gun owner with only one tooth and a mouth that would make a sailor blush, while ignoring the everyday Joe with casual or business dress who can speak articulately about his cause. I am not saying that this fellow in Boulder had a beard, was pot bellied, or had only one tooth, but his T-shirt gave the impression that he was ready to take up arms against the Boulder City Council. Maybe the Tyranny Response Team should re-evaluate the name of their organization, or at least advise their members that outward appearances make the most indelible first impression.

Using that old saw, Sam Cole from the Million Mom organization said, "We all know this is about protecting kids. This isn't about a slippery slope." It seems that whenever liberals want to persuade those in power to see things their way, all they have to do is to mention that is for the protection of the children.

Someday it will be recognized that personal protection cannot be legislated, but legislation can take personal protection from us.
 
Eric-
My position may be real unpopular around here, but I'll forge on anyway.

I don't see a real problem with this ordinance:
Case 1:
Your firearms are secured [/i]at all times[/i]. Your children are trained and responsible.

Case 1, Scenario 1:
Three teens break into your home, break into your secured firearms and commit a crime with them: You've done nothing wrong and are, in fact, protected by law.

Case 1, Scenario 2:
A home invasion occurs: Your family dies as you attempt to access a locked weapon: Shame on you.

Case 1, Scenario 3:
Your kids are not quite as responsible as you thought and try to examine your locked firearms: Shame on you but nobody gets hurt.

Case 2:
Your firearms are secured only when you are out of the house. Your children are trained and responsible.

Case 2, Scenario 1:
Three teens break into your home: Result: Same as in Case 1; not your problem.

Case 2, Scenario 2:
A home invasion occurs: Result: You contribute to elevation of the gene pool.

Case 2, Scenario 3:
Your kids are not quite as responsible as you thought and try to examine your unlocked firearms: Shame on you. You pay the consequence of your personal decision.
Rich
 
Rich, I think you missed part of the summary. The law requires that any firearm being transported in your car be in a case that clearly shows it contains a firearm. Not only are you now car theft bait, but if you have a CCW, too bad. Your gun comes off and goes into the case, or you go to jail. If you prefer to keep a gun handy for defense while in your car, too bad. It goes in the case or you go to jail. We've had a similar law here in Illinois forever, except that the gun must also be unloaded. It's a royal pain in the ass and ensures that defense guns are all but useless.

We also have a "safe storage" law in Illinois. The devil is in the details. My father, for instance, has a large gun collection. Years ago we ran a gun shop, which we built in half our garage. For insurance purposes, the gun shop had only one small window and two doors. The window is covered with bars. The back door is locked, deadbolted, and secured with a bar made of a 2x4 encased in 1/8" sheet steel, mounted on 1/2" steel arms. The front door is locked and deadbolted, plus there's an iron gate on the outside. Inside, there's a motion-detector alarm that's incredibly loud and works.

Once the shop folded, dad decided to keep his entire collection out there since it was so safe and well-guarded. But you guessed it--that fortress that cost us thousands of dollars to build doesn't meet the legal standard of "safe storage!" Each individual gun has to be trigger-locked or secured in safes. A crappy $5 trigger lock per gun would cost my father nearly $1000. He has decided not to obey the law, and so he's a criminal, all because he thought his sensible precautions to store his firearms safely, taken at great labor and expense, ought to outweigh an anti-gun government's idea of what constitutes safety.
 
Lest we forget:

<snip>
Joe de Raismes while introducing the ordinance said that the safe storage of assault rifles was " a reasonable first step".
<snip>
 
On the Slippery Slope

I have to agree with Don Gwinn and others that these laws are entirely out of control. As stated in his post, "....anti-gun government's idea of what constitutes safety.", is right on the mark. Usurping the Constitution and the weakening of “Citizens Rights” is the final outcome of these laws.

These high level defined laws never take into account anything other than placing laws on the books to satisfy the special interest groups. I use the term "special interest groups" when in fact it may represent, a high total of the voting public. The fact though remains, that no matter what the law, when it violates “each” citizens rights especially in his own home that these laws are wrong.
 
As Rick D says . . . plus a Boulder editorial

<snip>
Joe de Raismes while introducing the ordinance said that the safe storage of assault rifles was " a reasonable first step".
<snip>

The next "reasonable step" is to allow the authorities to make random, unannounced "safety" inspections of your home. Failure to store firearms safely will result in a fine and forfeiture of that firearm. Next step after that is a felony sentence. That also takes care of any future gun ownership.

EDITORIAL
Common sense on guns
thompsonm@thedailycamera.com

The Boulder City Council last week brought good judgment and a sense of balance to the debate over gun safety. It was no small achievement.

Balance and good judgment too often disappear from view when the subject is gun legislation, as Congress and the Colorado General Assembly have demonstrated so many times. Two irreconcilable forces clash, lobbyists swing into action, and when the shouting is over the final result is ... nothing.

The city council and staff took a different approach to the gun issue, with quite different results. The process actually began nearly two years ago, when the council responded to the Columbine High School massacre by launching a review of local gun ordinances. Over time, the city considered several different proposals and listened to hour after hour of testimony on both sides. One hearing last summer drew hundreds of people, including members of a pro-gun group called the Tyranny Response Team, who dressed as a fife-and-drum brigade while demonstrating outside City Hall.

On Tuesday night, the council unanimously approved a few modest, realistic changes in city gun laws. The new language prohibits minors from possessing a rifle or a shotgun in the city, with certain exceptions, and prohibits adults from providing a firearm to a minor. The council also required gun owners to use carrying cases when transporting a gun in public (except for those licensed to carry concealed weapons), and modified the requirements for "safe storage" of firearms. The changes will become official after the council takes a final vote at its next regular meeting.

The council members gave everyone — and we mean everyone — a hearing before arriving at their decision. After so many months of staff review and preparation, they might have allowed little or no public discussion at Tuesday's meeting. Instead, they devoted three hours to the viewpoints of more than 50 people, most of whom opposed what the city was trying to do. (Note to the University of Colorado Board of Regents: This is what public participation is supposed to be.)

Nothing in this package was included merely for its symbolic value. Some gun-safety advocates have called for other measures, such as a ban on assault weapons, but the city decided against that change — partly because crimes committed with assault weapons are too rare in Boulder to warrant a separate law. An assault-weapons ban would address a problem that, for all practical purposes, doesn't exist.

And practical purposes underlie every one of these changes in the law. The revisions in the city ordinance wouldn't prevent a hardened criminal from committing an act of violence (what law would?), but they can help to reduce the risk of accidents, public disturbances and gun-related crimes committed in the heat of the moment.

A case in point is the requirement that gun owners use cases for carrying their weapons in public. Local police have responded too many times to callers who panic when they spot someone packing a gun openly in public. If carrying a gun in a case helps to prevent these overreactions, it helps the police — and promotes public safety.

We don't see the new language on the books as a prelude to harsher regulations. As Mayor Will Toor commented after Tuesday's meeting, there's no "slippery slope" here. The council members approved these changes in the belief that they can reduce the risk of tragedy without trampling on the rights of law-abiding citizens. It was the right decision for the right reason.

Copyright 2000 The Daily Camera.






[Edited by Oatka on 01-21-2001 at 02:44 PM]
 
EDITORIAL
Common sense on guns
thompsonm@thedailycamera.com

You didn't do your research.

"The city council and staff took a different approach to the gun issue,"

There is nothing "different" about this approach. It has been discussed in anti-gun circles for years. Washington
State's I636 initiative (which was defeated) was one such attempt.


"On Tuesday night, the council unanimously approved a few modest, realistic changes in city gun laws."
and "We don't see the new language on the books as a prelude to harsher regulations. As Mayor Will Toor commented
after Tuesday's meeting, there's no "slippery slope" here."

This is a lie. It is always a lie.

The problem is that the following was reported: "Joe de Raismes while introducing the ordinance said that the safe
storage of assault rifles was " a reasonable first step".

Who is he trying to fool? "Assault Rifles"? Does this ordinance pertain to M16s only? A "first step" means that they want a second and third and fourth step. It also ignores the many steps they have taken before. Like researchers Wright and Rossi of Tulane University Press, they cannot show any gun control law that has reduced crime. If they are planning more steps, that means they are prepared for this step to fail. So, as they propose these measures, we should ask, "Okay, we know this will fail like all the others....so, what will that next step be?"

"The new language prohibits minors from possessing a rifle or a shotgun in the city, with certain exceptions, and
prohibits adults from providing a firearm to a minor."

My oldest brother bought his first rifle at the age of 14 at Sears back in 1962. He hunted and practiced target
shooting as a minor by himself for four years. Now, the BrainTrust would like us to think that my brother was a threat to society. I don't buy it. And you can't prove it.

"The council also required gun owners to use carrying cases when transporting a gun in public (except for those
licensed to carry concealed weapons),"

You of course know that open carry is legal in Colorado, don't you? No permit required. You also know that
concealed carry permits are issued on a biased discretionary basis and are rarely granted. Are you now reducing that
right to only those who would pay a $200 annual fee? Should poor people have to comply with this tax on self
defense? Do you have to submit to an FBI background check when you exercise your rights? If one has to lock up
his self defense weapon it makes it difficult to use for that purpose, don't you think?

"Instead, they devoted three hours to the viewpoints of more than 50 people, most of whom opposed what the city
was trying to do."

Do you expect your readers to believe that this decision was not already set in place no matter how many people
came out against it? This was a dog and pony show. The fact that so many people came out to object to the
measures and were rewarded with a unanimous vote against them illustrates the point.

"The revisions in the city ordinance wouldn't prevent a hardened criminal from committing an act of violence (what
law would?),"

These ordinances make it more difficult for people to defend themselves from these "hardened criminals." If you want
to know what laws would reduce crime, I suggest you read John Lott's "More Guns, Less Crime" on the effect of
having more peaceful citizens go armed, thus intimidating the bad guys into other lines of work.

"A case in point is the requirement that gun owners use cases for carrying their weapons in public. Local police have responded too many times to callers who panic when they spot someone packing a gun openly in public."

Here in Arizona, the police get such calls as well, often from people who are not from Arizona. The police calmly
inform the caller that open carry is legal in Arizona and unless the person is violating someone's rights, there is nothing that needs to be done. What you suggest is that since there are some uninformed gun phobic bigots who complain, we should modify our behavior to mollify them. No thanks.

"The council members approved these changes in the belief that they can reduce the risk of tragedy without trampling on the rights of law abiding citizens."

They have no evidence to support the former and they couldn't care less about the latter.

Rick DeStephens
Phx, Az
 
(Quote)
The ordinance also requires that all firearms be kept under lock and key, in the minimum of a locked closet, if there are no children in the home, or in a locked gun safe in the event that there are.
(UNquote)

Hmm. So if I can buy a $100 shotgun, a lockable $100 Homak metal cabinet or a $30 (used) lockable, hard gun case is inadequate. I must pay $800-$2000 for a gun safe.

Talk about an elitist law!

If my grandkids come to visit me it's supposed to cost me a couple grand to lock up my Garand???

If a single Mom with an infant (in a crib) can't afford "a few hundred bucks" for a gun safe, she does not deserve the Right, oh, excuse me, the privilege of being able to defend herself and her baby? :mad:

It's just another attempt to make gun ownership too expensive for folks with little discretionary income.

That policy is unconstitutional. Period. No question.

"... shall not be infringed" says it all.
 
WHO DO THEY THINK THEY ARE..........

Kidding????????
If a teen or pre teen steals these weapons, or anyone else for that matter....they can, and will be sued if it/ they are used in a crime.........sheeesshh

Here we go AGAIN,,,,,,,,now we're from the LOCAL Govmint...and we're here to HEP YOU!!!!!
 
a
64-year-old Boulder resident, dressed in a "Tyranny Response Team" T-shirt, "drew a round of applause when he pledged to
resist any laws that interfere with his gun ownership". While I agree with this gentleman, I wonder why he found it necessary to
give the news media fodder to make gun owners look like right wing nuts. I guess he could have been wearing cammo!
It seems like whenever there is a rally in support of gun owners rights, the media always homes in on the bearded, potbellied,
cammo clad gun owner with only one tooth and a mouth that would make a sailor blush, while ignoring the everyday Joe with
casual or business dress who can speak articulately about his cause. I am not saying that this fellow in Boulder had a beard, was
pot bellied, or had only one tooth, but his T-shirt gave the impression that he was ready to take up arms against the Boulder City
Council. Maybe the Tyranny Response Team should re-evaluate the name of their organization, or at least advise their members
that outward appearances make the most indelible first impression.
Click to expand...
 
The part of the quote referring to the TRT with which I fully agree is "Maybe the Tyranny Response Team should...at least advise their members that outward appearances make the most indelible first impression."

The battle is for the public perception. Facts don't matter. There is an ancient saying about the three main factors in Real Estate Development: Location, location and location. For us, it's Perception, perception and perception. Yes, we give facts--but facts are tremendously less important than perception.

We are perceived as Good Guys only as we appear to be Good Guys. And Good Guys look like "regular, middle-class Americans" in the eyes of the public at large. Anybody for a TRT showing up at these affairs, or talking to the Mediahhhh, should be very clean cut and should wear a suit and tie. There should be a selected spokesman, a person who is knowledgeable and articulate. To do otherwise is to lose out to the Grabbers' Big Lies.

And if I'm wrong, how come we're perceived as knuckle-dragging, camo-wearing slobs? How come we're losing the battle for the public mind? Hmmm, Bunkie?

Art
 
Interesting how american citizens always
turn into the terrible lobbiest's
or the powerful gun industry and how
disarming american citizens so they cannot
protect themselves in the face of such wacko's
as the columbine killers becomes 'practical'.
To me this just shows us what a STRANGLEHOLD
the largest lobby of all has on the city
state and federal governments and so many people
that is the LIBERAL media.
 
When I hear admonishments that we need to look "respectable" and sound "reasonable," I have to wonder if the people saying this are even paying attention.

NRA has bent over backwards to look "respectable" and seem "reasonable," even to the point of supporting draconian new gun laws (which just happen to be slightly less draconian than the laws the grabbers want this year). And yet, they still get portrayed as wall-eyed radical lunatic extremists in the press.

Any gun rights supporter who thinks we can charm our way into media "respectability" is hopelessly naive. Suits and ties are fine for lawyers and business executives, but lots of ordinary folks wear "message" t-shirts, and most of them are not "knuckle-draggers."
 
Umm Don,
Might not be so wise to let the world know the layout and number of fencable goods they can get.
 
What Beez said

I have to agree. We have an 800 pound gorilla (NRA) dressed in a suit present, at least in spirit at most of these events. Problem is, this gorilla will perform tricks if the antis toss him a banana.

There is a special place in my heart for the actions of the TRT. They are our shock troops. They make the bad guys piddle their pants.

Rick
 
Response from Tyranny Response Team

To All:

As a member of the Colorado Tyranny Response Team who was present both as a speaker and a listener at the City Council chambers, I must respond to several of the comments here.

Gentlemen, if you think that appearing "reasonable" and "professional" is going to change the hearts of the men and women who are set on destroying both the exercise of our inherent rights and the culture of liberty in these United States, you are entitled to that opinion.

In my view, this is nothing more than appeasement.

I am disgusted and offended that people on TFL would consider those with "beards and potbellies" to be a detriment to the freedoms of every single American. Do you then subscribe the comments of Cherie Trine, a Fort Collins MMM activist, who said to the Boulder Weekly that "they are great big men, many of whom are somewhat fat" who also "blow up Federal buildings" because "everybody knows this"?

If you support that attitude towards those of us who are there on the streets, putting their bodies and their families where it counts - then perhaps you can join Cherie Trine in court next month, when she defends herself against third degree assault charges. After all, those "fat scary men" who "look like militia nuts" are a social disease you obviously have cultural arguments with.

Sure. Let's suppress them, since you don't like the way they look. While we're at it, let's shut down everyone who states opinions in a manner with which you disagree. Let's legislate against gays, since some of them cross-dress. Let's prevent black people from voting, since some of them wear sloppy clothes and listen to atrocious music. Let's tell the folks in the Indiana Baptist Temple to shut up and take their medicine, because they set a bad example for other religious groups who have a real argument.

In fact, let's ban me from The Firing line, since I support the Tyranny Response Team.

We are not engaged in back-and-forth legislation. We are engaged in a cultural war between those who oppose freedom, and those who intend to preserve it. If you buy into the argument of the Left that people who don't look like you do are bad, lower-class fools who should be locked up, then I submit that you've already chosen sides with distinct visibility.

The Tyranny Response Team was not created to be another "make-nice" group. It is deliberately confrontational, in-your-face, and on-the-scene loud.

If you're not comfortable with that, switch channels.

If you buy into the concept that we can only approach the domestic enemies of freedom in this nation by looking like them, talking like them, and pandering to their volatile and immature sensitivities - then so be it.

I have seen hundreds of people here talk about "Molon Labe" and how they will fight to keep their guns from being taken. They talk about survivalism, about forming resistance groups to unconstitutional government. They declare their patriotism to be powerful enough to restart the Civil War.

I no longer believe them.

How can I take it seriously when the sight of a man in a pair of camo pants with a beard upsets their stomach to the point where they turn on their own? Am I supposed to consider this evidence of their commitment to uphold their rights by force of arms - the entire purpose of the Second Amendment?

Gentlemen, action is what demonstrates resolve. If you don't like the appearance of the Tyranny Response Team when it takes action on your behalf - then either take action yourself, or stop whining about your rights being destroyed.

Best regards,

Robert Teesdale
robert@teesdale.com
http://www.teesdale.com
 
One more thought

To All:

This entire issue of people being discomfited by other's apparel is essentially founded on the "don't upset them" attitude that is so gracelessly prevalent amongst purported defenders of rights in this nation.

The taking of rights is an act of violence.

Am I to be concerned about upsetting those who are perpetrating violence against the nation? In my state? Against the very community that I live within?

Forget it.

In my opinion, the Sierra Times is demonstrating nothing more than that their self-image of social class is more important to them than our rights.

Perhaps they'd prefer that we reverted the Second Amendment to follow the original English version, in which the right was only present depending upon your "condition" - in other words, whether you're a member of the social elite or not. Keep those vile, common peasants quiet and out of sight.

Best regards,

Robert Teesdale
robert@teesdale.com
http://www.teesdale.com
 
Robert has a good point. However, the only real issue is empirical. Does the appearance of the more radical gun crowd aid or help the cause?

It can be argued that the more radical Black Panthers
and the more radical gay community aided their causes.
Similarly with the more radical women's groups.

If it worked for them, why not us? However, I would clearly disassociate myself from the McVeighs of the world.

So does it work or not?
 
Enoch Gale:

Excellent points.

If gays and lesbians had followed the viewpoint of the Sierra Times, they would not have achieved even a margin of the success they have.

The Black Panthers demonstrated quite clearly - in a socially unattractive and noisy fashion - that blacks were to be respected.

The Founding Fathers were looked upon by the ruling powers as traitors not merely to the Crown... but to their social class. And indeed, the Second Amendment - by shattering the English conception of arms and conditions - emphatically makes clear that we, the People, all share our rights - and the forceful preservation of them - equally.

Take a look at Sam Adams and the Sons of Liberty. The parallels are interesting, and worth noting by those who consider cheese, wine, and Gucci to be more important than the freedom of their children.

Best regards,

Robert Teesdale
robert@teesdale.com
http://www.teesdale.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top