Jump to content
The good news about this vote is that all the City Council can actually decide is where this year's accommodations tax is spent. Next City Council will probably approve the funding for 2014, but then I expect the trails coalition to be expected to justify continued spending vs other options for 2015.
Until the property owners along Yampa St commit to bringing serious money and easements to the table, then it is scandalous to propose spending millions of tax money to make their properties more valuable.
Kermit Gosnell was convicted of murder. He ran an abortion clinic that violated numerous laws. Looks like he should have been caught and shut down earlier.
I consider it to be comparable to cases where a doctor or nurse at a nursing home is found to be killing patients. No one, not even a doctor, has the right to kill others.
These laws do not prevent from owning guns. It closes a loophole in background checks that are required at a retail gun shop and at Colorado gun shows for licensed dealers. Those that purchase guns at retail shops will not notice any changes in their ability to purchase guns.
A magazine limit of 15 rounds may not have that much of an impact, but it is hardly comparable to confiscating guns. It is reasonable to have a magazine limit because it is well documented that even trained police officers will often keep firing until they have to reload. So it is reasonable to hope that a magazine limit will result in fewer rounds hitting innocent bystanders or neighbors when someone is defending themselves. Considering the long history of six shooters and other weapons with less than 15 rounds, being limited to 15 rounds is not preventing a credible ability to defend one's self.
It is Sheriff Wiggins who is claiming that reasonable discretion cannot be practiced and so a law which cannot be enforced in all cases becomes unconstitutional.
I respectfully decline your proposals.
Well, most states would argue that the federal government was approved by the states so a local sheriff's primary responsibility is to state law, not federal law.
If a truly unconstitutional law was passed then the proper way for law enforcement to respond is to get official legal advice from a licensed attorney. That legal advice is not allowed to be a speculative lawsuit, but a carefully reasoned analysis of the current law and current legal decisions. If a court rules that the law is different than the legal advice then the attorney can lose their license to practice law. Thus, official legal advice is cautious and mentions all related legal decisions.
Thus, if City of Craig were to pass a mandatory gun ownership law then the Craig Police Chief could get legal advice which would most likely state why the law would be found to be unconstitutional. So then Craig Police department could have an official policy to not enforce that law and not be accused of arbitrarily ignoring local laws.
But, Sheriff Wiggins makes no claim to have sought official legal advice. Instead he made a political decision to go along with the NRA and use the legitimacy of his office to oppose Colorado gun laws.
If he really believed in what this lawsuit is claiming the why isn't he out busting the local dispensaries that are selling schedule 1 narcotics? They are operating under state law which is contrary to federal law. The current federal precedent (Raich v Gonzales) holds that mmj still violates federal law.
So his "primary oath" to uphold the US Constitutional depends entirely upon his personal opinion of what laws he likes or dislikes.
Lawsuit filing is at:
Thing reads like satire. Did the paper ask Sheriff Wiggins if he supports the claims made in the filing?
It claims disabled people need at least 15 rounds for personal defense and having to reload another magazine is too hard for them. So somehow the disabled person has sufficient dexterity to responsibly fire at least 15 shots, but lacks the dexterity to reload.
It claims a 15 round magazine cannot be made as if an engineer could not design a 15 round magazine.
It claims that not having a date or serial number makes tracking ownership impossible because ownership cannot be proven. So laws against stealing jewelry or anything else without serial numbers would also be impossible to enforce.
It also claims that any law that cannot be absolutely completely enforced is unconstitutional. So apparently Sheriff Wiggins believes that since he lacks the personnel to monitor speed limits on every section of every county road at all times then speed limits are also unconstitutional.
It also makes the claim that Heller means that any weapon once legal must always be legal which would require Supreme Court to overturn precedents which Heller explicitly state are being upheld.
If Sheriff Wiggins takes these legal arguments seriously then how does he allow his dept to arrest anyone for any crime? Surely, he must realize that when they arrest a drunk driver that there were other drivers not caught that day driving drunk. He just signed onto a lawsuit saying such incomplete enforcement is unconstitutional.
So 14% fewer seats carrying 6% fewer passengers and Jan-Mar sales tax revenues are up 6.6%.
How can overall sales tax revenues which includes an increase in the accommodations be decreasing while airline passengers are decreasing? That would imply that the local tourism economy is not so dependent upon airline passengers. The need for a tax to support the airline flights in order to benefit the local economy is certainly far less than claimed during the campaign.
And somehow we have flights during the summer without expensive subsidies. So certainly there would be some flights during the winter without any subsidies. So exactly what additional capacity is being purchased at what cost?
So you propose banning ideas and supporting weapons designed to kill? So in your world we might as well allow people to purchase fragmentation grenades because only bad people would use them against the public? The idea that grenades allows a person with bad intent to do far more damage than otherwise possible is not a sufficient reason to ban them?
It is normally recognized that there is a big difference between an idea and acting upon the idea. So the idea is not illegal, but acting upon the idea is illegal.
The US Supreme Court has enough contact with reality that it recognizes that society has an interest in protecting public safety. That there are people that are too dangerous to own guns and there are military weapons too powerful to be owned by the public.
The US Supreme Court has ruled that the "well regulated militia" is very important to understanding the Second Amendment. They have ruled that competent law abiding citizens have a right to consider themselves part of a well regulated militia and that government can regulate, but not ban that citizens militia.
Sure, bike trails are nice and popular.
The issue gets more complicated when working on bike trails is promised to increase summer tourism.
The business world is typically a data driven world. A corporation such a retail chain or motel looks at data to determine the size of the market and the number of competing businesses in the area.
Based upon the numbers, there is little reason to believe that a major investment in local trails will increase summer tourism. Doesn't matter how much local enthusiasts say that better biking trails will increase tourism, they don't have facts on their side. Thus, anyone expecting that spending accommodations tax revenues on bike trails will increase summer tourism is likely to be proven wrong.
Bike trails can be expected to be an appreciated local amenity so the money will not be wasted. But the odds are greatly against reality becoming a 10 year bike trail building program than results in noticeable improvements to summer tourism. Thus, if that is approved then how long will money be spent on trail building before it is expected to show results.
Your argument is not with me, but with the US Supreme Court. The US Supreme Court in their decision declaring that Washington DC's ban on handguns was unconstitutional also stated that it was still legal to regulate guns. That felons and the mentally ill could be banned from owning guns and that dangerous or unusual guns can be banned.
The difference between books and guns is that there is no risk to the public from felons and the mentally ill in reading or owning a book. Apparently the gun rights people are so extreme in their views that they do not recognize that thousands of people a year die of gunshot wounds while no one dies from paper cuts.
Last login: Thursday, May 9, 2013
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2013 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.