U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

Governor See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse

(D) Phil Weiser

(D) Jena Griswold

60%

60%

40%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Alexis King

(D) Brian Mason

40%

40%

30%

Sec. of State See Full Big Line

(D) George Stern

(D) A. Gonzalez

(R) Sheri Davis

40%

40%

30%

State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(R) Kevin Grantham

(D) Jerry DiTullio

60%

30%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd*

(D) Somebody

80%

40%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Somebody

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(R) Gabe Evans*

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(D) Joe Salazar

50%

40%

40%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
April 17, 2012 09:05 PM UTC

Like The "Pinto Memo," Except For Murder

  • 13 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

Associated Press:

A Colorado proposal to eliminate state background checks for firearm purchases has been tentatively approved by the Republican state House.

The bill would end checks done by the Colorado Bureau of Investigation. Republican Rep. Mark Waller, who sponsored the bill, said the state is spending unnecessarily on its background check program. Walker says the background checks duplicate ones already done federally.

House Bill 12-1048 is presented by its supporters, like sponsor Rep. Mark Waller, as a bill eliminating a “redundant” background check performed by the Colorado Bureau of Investigations (CBI) and using only the federally-administered background check. The use of state background checks originated from an incident in 1998 where a man with a restraining order against him was nevertheless able to purchase a gun, which he used to murder his family.

What does the sponsor of House Bill 1048 say about the 1998 case of Simon Gonzales? At the end of last month, here’s what he said on the House floor:

WALLER: And I’ll tell you members, when we talked about this bill in committee, I asked, um, those in opposition to come forward and show me where this has had an impact. Show me where we have had problems in this arena. And there was one incident, only one incident, that, that caused this, um, program to be put in place in the first place, that was an incident back in 1998 with a guy named Simon Gonzales. Now Simon Gonzales did go out an purchase a firearm, and Simon Gonzales committed a horrible act. He, he killed his family after, um, um, after, uh, after he went out and purchased that firearm and that’s the only reason, that one act is the reason that we have this statute on the books right now. [Pols emphasis]

FOX 31’s Eli Stokols:

[Rep. Rhonda] Fields, D-Aurora, argued that the second background check by the state is important in that it catches individuals the federal system often overlooks – namely, those subject to restraining orders.

“Already this session, the House Republicans have passed bills to allow anyone to carry a concealed handgun without a permit and to allow business owners to shoot fleeing robbers even if their own lives aren’t threatened,” Fields said. “Maximizing the number of guns is no way to stem the violence that afflicts our society.”

In 2005, Fields’ son, Javad Marshall Fields, and his girlfriend, Vivian Wolfe, were gunned down by gang members because Fields was set to testify against them in another murder trial.

So folks, who would you rather line up with here politically? The representative who tells you that this “one act” (that is, a guy killing his family) is the “only reason” we have the statute, or the one who can make a rather convincing case that one preventable murder is enough? According to opponents of this bill, CBI checks are more thorough “because of access to municipal criminal records and restraining order records not necessarily accessible to the FBI.”

How do you argue that’s not worth “the fuss” without looking like a comic book villain?

Tweet
Share

Comments

13 thoughts on “Like The “Pinto Memo,” Except For Murder”

  1. He says that CBI checks are redundant, but that’s NOT what the NRA says!

    HB 1048, introduced by state Representative Mark Waller (R-15), would eliminate the duplicative and broadly disqualifying state-run Colorado Bureau of Investigation (CBI) InstaCheck system for the purchase of firearms and solely utilize the existing National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). By removing the CBI InstaCheck, HB 1048 would no longer unnecessarily preclude law-abiding citizens from exercising their Second amendment right to purchase a firearm and also save the taxpayers of Colorado $1.9 million in unnecessary state expenditures.

    How is the CBI check “broadly” disqualifying where NCIS is not? That’s not what Waller says the bill is about. How do CBI checks “unnecessarily preclude law-abiding citizens from exercising their Second amendment right to purchase a firearm?” How can CBI checks do these things if they’re “redundant?”

    Good post. Go ahead and call a spade a spade though. Make Waller explain why the NRA says something different from what he says!

      1. As part of a divorce proceeding, Jessica Gonzales obtained a restraining order against her husband Simon, which limited his access to the family home and to their children. On June 22, 1999, Simon abducted their three daughters from the home. Early the next morning, Simon committed “suicide by cop”; he was killed in a gunfight after he fired shots through a police station window. Police found the murdered bodies of Leslie, 7, Katheryn, 9 and Rebecca, 10, in Simon’s pickup truck.

        Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0…

      2. Why should I have to be inconvenienced by a CBI background check just because some other guy killed his family?

        That guy was an evil doer – evil exists in the world – inconveniencing me or charging me more fees isn’t going to change that.

      4. Are there public records of people who have been denied firearms because of the CBI check, but passed the FBI check?  If those records ARE available, AND if they do show that no one has been in that situation for 12 years, I might be in agreement with removing the CBI check as a cost-saving measure.  I’m not a fan of “if it saves just one life…” as an emotional appeal when we manifestly do NOT do plenty of things that would cost less and would definitely save a lot more lives — things like put more effort into funding school districts in low-income districts, or funding rudimentary health care for homeless mothers.

        On the other hand, it’s being said by a Republican, so it’s probably a lie.  And the NRA is telling its members that the CBI check actually is taking away their second amendment rights, so we know for a fact that someone is lying here.  It’s logically impossible for both Mark Waller and the NRA to be telling the truth.  So I imagine this is probably actually a wise use of money that keeps guns out of the hands of criminals, and something worth funding.

        1. There are no actual public examples. though the CBI website does have statistics on denied individuals.   Having said that though CBI has collected cases for this bill that show individuals that by federal law would be prohibited, but would not have been denied by NCIC due to them lacking the means of obtaining the deniable record be it through CCIC or through the state court systems.  This accounts for a good amount of denials from CBI.

          Another thing to keep in mind for the people that think CBI is inconveniencing them by having the check.  It could be worse, NCIC could be running the check.  The average wait time form NCIC to start a check is longer than CBI.  Sure their checks take less time due to them using less databases, but takes longer to pull in the check.  one group processing for 40+states vs one group processing for 1 state.

          Others things to also look at.

          1.  If you are denied at CBI, they have 30 days by law to process your appeal.  FBI has no mandate from that, and if they do not find the record that it is regarding then you are just hosed.

          and 2. there have been many people who have successfully appealed a denial over the years with CBI,  denials that the FBI would have made as well.  What this means though is that though CBI has cleared these individuals up for their purposes, those databases are not accessible to the NCIC which means that all those people who have a right to their fire-arm would have to NCIC and they will be further inconvenienced and could possibly be placed in that indefinite appeal process mentioned above.

      5. You know could it be that the reason that there is only the one example to cite is because CBI has been there for those 14 years?  hmmm….

  2. I’m sure others here know the rules & regs much better than I but aren’t private transactions and deals by “irregular” sellers (those at flea markets, gun shows, swap meets, etc) exempt from FBI background checks but are required by CBI?

    And yes, Waller is better than Dougie Bruce but isn’t he a card-carrying TeaParty harpie onboard with all that anti-Fed bullshit?  So here’s a guy who thinks the Fed gov’t can’t do anything right and via GOTP values is all about state’s right but now willing to rely solely on Fed for background checks.    



    That’s funny but not quite a belly roar …  

    1. And that’s always where the TeaPartiers arguments fail.  They cherry pick which Federal agencies/programs/regs benefit their argument, state that these processes are legitimately needed, then argue for the repeal of anything that doesn’t fit their ideology.  But I guess that’s what most people do when their arguments fail to stand up to the test of reason.

      1. They cherry pick which Federal agencies/programs/regs benefit their argument, state that these processes are legitimately needed, then argue for the repeal of anything that doesn’t fit their ideology.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

59 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!