Jump to content
Wiggins was misquoted in the paper which you would have heard if you had come to hear him speak on Mon night--the paper supports Wiggins enforcement issues as stated in their Sun editorial--so give it up.
Further, even if a $75.00 fee was approved and an FFL was protected from liability for a "hot" gun, the "law" does not require an FFL to run the check. If an FFL felt the "law" was a violation of the Second Amendment they may say NO to running the check. Frankly, I am tired of you bloviating on this issue. If you are genuinely concerned about guns, go spend some time with Ken at the gun store. He is more than happy to spend time educating any and all about the process. For instance, did you know that EVERY gun is sold with a lock in the box (or on the action)? This is to help keep the loaded firearm from going off in the hands of a toddler--if we could just get those pesky parents to be responsible.
Once again, Scott, the biggest problem is not the fee, even though that alone may prevent the FFL from even bothering with the transaction. The bigger problem is the "law" DOES NOT PROTECT THE FFL FROM THE LIABILITY OF RUNNING A BACKGROUND CHECK FOR A PURCHASER OF A GUN THAT MAY HAVE BEEN STOLEN OR USED IN A PREVIOUS CRIME. You are a smart guy, why is that so hard for you to understand????
You seem to be suggesting that we only look at the gun laws now. Interesting that you did not comment about our judicial system which is lax in enforcing the existing 20,000 laws already on the books. More gun laws is NOT the solution, Scott!! If the new CO background check law was written in such a way to cover the FFL cost AND protect the FFL license holder against liability I am sure you would find cooperation among the FFL's in this state!!! Such is the problem with lawmakers rushing through feel-good legislation without consideration of the "experts"--like law enforsement officers-- opinions. Did you not attend Mon nights session with Sheriff Wiggins????????????
Sheriff Wiggins made some outstanding points at Monday's meeting. First, that violence in this country (not just gun violence) is a problem with many and varied reasons. So if a pie-chart is created misuse of guns is just one piece. Secondly, how do you legislate against crazy, evil and just plain stupid! Of all the reasons for violence, guns have been the most regulated--once again, why aren't the courts strictly enforcing the 20,000 laws already on the books regarding gun related crimes. Background checks at gun shows I would support--it is a place of commerce just like retail stores. Other reasons talked about for violence include--lax parenting, violent video games/movies, etc, mental illness with violent tendencies, bad economy resorting to more crime, just for a start. Will mental health professionals participate when they have concerns about a patient? Will relatives report a "troubled" young person in the home? Will the entertainment industry review their "right" of free speech and artistic freedoms? It is time the public look at the bigger picture for answers--not just at guns.
I doubt very seriously that WalMart or Sports Authority will do the background checks because first and foremost it will require the seller to enter the store with the gun being transferred. I bet that is against company policy. Secondly, they will have the exact same concerns that smaller FFL's have--how to verify the seller is the actual owner of the gun.
Great article, Tom! What was not fully explained at the meeting is how Colorado has some of the strictest background requirements of any state. While you might pass the Federal background check, you will not get through the CBI (CO Bureau of Investigation) if you are behind in paying your court mandated child support obligations, for instance.
Gee Scott, I feel so much safer now that you have weighed in. What about the nimrod that shot down the stairs at the Tap House employees. How lucky were they that they were not hurt. This community is not the safe haven it used to be. Safe handling of firearms is the key and unfortunately too many family members seem to think a gun is a toy as seen on cartoons and video games. It is a crying shame we do not live in the "Leave It To Beaver" era anymore but the sad reality is we do not.
I would encourage you to read the bio of ex-NRA President and now Board of Director member of the NRA, Sandy Froman. Ms. Froman was a liberal attorney in San Francisco, until she was confronted one night by an intruder and calls to 911, banging on the walls of her apt did not bring her aide. The next day she purchased a firearm. Her story is compelling. While this does not answer your questions of me, I would say to you that I am not concerned at all that people know I live in an "armed" household--especially since this not an anon blog anymore and our posts can be read by anyone in the world. I DO NOT wish you or any of my fellow humans any harm, but do you want the public-at-large to know you do not have arms in your home which can be gathered by the content of your posts--unless of course you are just playing "devil's advocate"? I choose to NOT be a victim and all it takes is one intruder. And as to your statistics, like all statistics, the numbers do not tell the whole story. Who is being murdered by firearms? Competing gang members, inner city youth that cannot get jobs, criminals entering homes to cause harm, concealed carry owners preventing a crime at a church or convenience store. And if there were not firearms would some of these victims be poisoned, knived, clubbed to death with a baseball bat, etc? Statistics are meaningless in my mind if the whole story is not told. I think you do great things in this community but on this issue we will never agree. : )
Read your history books, Steve. Through out modern history registration has led to confiscation. Are you naive enough to think it could not happen here????? Do you think criminals will register then give up their guns???
Last login: Friday, April 19, 2013
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2013 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.