April 27, 2024 01:51 PM UTC

A Few More Words On Rep. Richard Holtorf's Tragic Inability To Stop Talking

• 7 Comments
• by: Colorado Pols

Yesterday the Colorado House debated and eventually gave initial passage to Senate Bill 24-131, a bill that would prohibit firearms in certain “sensitive spaces.” The bill’s original broad scope was pared down considerably in amendments, but one amendment along the way more or less has become the focus of debate over the entire bill: prohibiting firearms in state legislative buildings including the Colorado Capitol, where Republican lawmakers have utilized alternate entrances to the building to bypass Colorado State Patrol metal detectors and bring their concealed weapons into the building. Earlier this month, Rep. Don Wilson of Monument once again reminded everyone of the risks inherent to this practice when he left a loaded Glock pistol unattended in a Capitol bathroom to be retrieved later by custodial staff.

In 2022, another Republican lawmaker Rep. Richard Holtorf of Akron, also one of the gaggle of CO-08 GOP primary candidates greasing the skids for Lauren Boebert’s win by plurality, was hustling down stairs inside the Capitol on his way to a committee hearing when his loaded pistol flopped out of whatever was holding it and hit the stone floor before Holtorf quickly retrieved his piece and proceeded on to his hearing. Thankfully Holtorf’s weapon did not discharge, and like Rep. Wilson Holtorf endured a week of bad press and a brief debate over why lawmakers should be allowed to carry guns in a building where no one but law enforcement is allowed to do so and where lawmakers have armed protection at their disposal. The incident also helped lead to Senate Bill 24-131, the bill Holtorf voluntarily took to the House floor to denounce.

At the very least, you might think these particularly compromised lawmakers would be inclined to keep their heads down during debate over a bill to finally end the questionable practice of lawmakers carrying guns in a space no one else can. But in yesterday’s debate over the bill, Richard Holtorf rejected that conventional wisdom in grand style. If you know like our readers do about Holtorf’s own irresponsibility with a gun at the Capitol, this will leave you positively dumbfounded:

HOLTORF: Thank you, Madam Chair. I hope you didn’t miss me for very long. I apologize for stepping out of the chamber, but now I’m back. I want to, express my deep concern for this overreaching what I would consider unconstitutional legislation prohibiting prohibiting the carrying of firearms in any spaces but particularly what is defined in this as sensitive spaces. You know, I don’t even know what sensitive is. But it’s defined in certain ways. Now, I will tell you that firearms are important for safety and security. Whether you are a law enforcement officer or you are just a citizen with the proper training and I understand our majority leader has been working on enhanced concealed carry, and we do have concealed carry. We do have, many opportunities for training, for responsible firearms owners. But this prohibition that’s brought forth by this bill truly infringes upon an amendment that is supposed to not be infringed upon. Now, many of you were not here about two years ago or three years ago when a Constitutional Carry bill was offered. Does anybody remember that? By a show of hands? I do. Yeah, a colleague of mine brought it forth. That constitutional carry means you can carry anywhere. Openly. Many states have Constitutional Carry. It might not surprise you as a rural legislator from the Eastern Plains, and I’m a big fan. And if I could constitutionally open carry in this chamber, I would. And all of you should not fear that. You should welcome it, because I would protect every one of you in a situation, even to my own demise. [Pols emphasis] Because I care about you all on a human level. And most good people do. Those that carry that are good, honest citizens, 99% of all citizens who carry concealed open care about their fellow human. Human and humanity. And they will only use their firearm in a manner that is required. So with respect to this prohibition, you now deny every one of those people the opportunity to protect and defend everyone else from criminality. Because there are two kinds of people, generally who commit crimes with firearms. The first kind, Madam Chair, the first kind is in fact a criminal. Someone in almost every case, young or old, those that are wielding a firearm to commit a violent act, they know they’re doing it. Either intentionally or unintentionally. They’re doing it, and I know it’s criminal. There are a few cases where it’s accidental. Now the one thing that concerns me with criminals is this, ladies and gentlemen: Most criminals that have intent to do harm they like soft targets. Now, who in here can define a soft target? Because I’m about ready to get- Thank you gentlemen. My fellow veteran colleague and brother. Round-Up rider brother. Long live the American cowboy. And his firearms. And I do ride with a I’ve got a a rifle and a pistol. I ride with…I can ride with. But I’m not going to talk about that. But I do want to mention that when you’re riding out in the country, they got these predators, apex predators, the worst one. And I may deviate a little bit about the prohibition here, but I do want people to know this. The worst apex predator that you can face on horseback when you’re riding the range and you’re trying to wrangle cattle is a Puma.

DAUGHERTY: Representative Holtorf.

HOLTORF: Yes, ma’am.

DAUGHERTY: I’ve been giving you some latitude, but let’s get back to the bill.

HOLTORF: Thank you. Ma’am, I appreciate your leadership. I think I said that wrong though, ma’am. It’s a mountain lion, and they can’t jump you when you’re a.

DAUGHERTY: Representative Holtorf.

HOLTORF: Yes, ma’am.

DAUGHERTY: We’re going back to the bill. I just warned you. So let’s go back to the bill. We’re not talking about Pumas.

What we have here is a representative who has proven he can’t keep control of his own firearm making the case that his colleagues should welcome his gun, in case he needs to defend them someday despite the presence of armed State Patrol and metal detectors that keep everyone else’s guns out of the building. There are 19 members of the Colorado Republican House micro-minority, and only two of them–three if you count Rep. Ron Weinberg’s unsecured guns being stolen out of his truck in the Capitol parking lot–are self-proven mindblowing hypocrites on this issue. They’re the ones who should not be talking.

But just like former Rep. Lori Saine, who sponsored legislation repealing Colorado gun laws just weeks after bringing her loaded pistol into a DIA security checkpoint, there’s a shamelessness about Republicans when it comes to relentless attacks on gun safety even when their own personal history makes them the worst possible messenger.

And we’re sorry to say, Holtorf wasn’t done:

HOLTORF: Yes, ma’am. Thank you for your leadership. Anyway, getting back to the bill. So there are times when you need to have a firearm. And I’m trying to make my point in my kind of western lore away because it’s an important point. There are times when you need to defend yourself from a threat, whether it’s got four legs or two legs. And if you have a firearm, it is a game changer for you. If you know how to handle a firearm. But more importantly, you can protect others. You can protect your fellow neighbor, friend, acquaintance. But if you prohibit this in these prohibited- prohibition of carrying firearms in these sensitive places and spaces, then you can’t. Now, the next subject I’m going to talk about is very sensitive, because I mentioned soft targets. And even folks that have intent to do harm, that are mentally deranged and have mental illnesses, they are smart enough to identify a soft target. And they do. Well, in gun free zones, for example, in Boulder County. That criminal went to a gun free zone, that it was a soft target and exacted great harm against innocent people. Yes, with extreme mental illness, but also with the intent to do harm. And he knew what he was going to do at the time. Now, I’ve said this several years ago, and I remember former Representative Sullivan sitting right over there. Yeah, I’m looking right where he was sitting.

DAUGHERTY: Representative Holtorf?

HOLTORF: Yes, ma’am.

DAUGHERTY: Let’s, proceed carefully here.

HOLTORF: Thank you. I do appreciate your leadership greatly. But I did mention in that day, on that fateful day, one red blooded, gun toting, concealed carry citizen, properly trained, would have ended that incident very quickly. Very quickly. In a manner, in my humble opinion, that would have been suitable to take care of the situation. Now, not everybody thinks like me. But I will tell you, that I think it is noble to protect humanity to protect others. Regardless of race, creed, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, country of origin. Because we are all humans. We are all humans and live in this world, in the human race. Now, I’ve been asked some information that I must exact attention on Madam Chair…

In 2014, GOP Sen. Bernie Herpin, just months after winning the recall election against former Senate President John Morse, suggested in testimony that it “was maybe a good thing” that the Aurora theater shooter “had a 100-round magazine,” citing the fact that it had eventually jammed–after over 70 shots were fired. The callous speculation about how that 2012 Aurora theater shooting, or other mass shooting incidents, might have gone differently but for a “good guy with a gun” who in reality did not prevent anyone’s death is a grievous insult to the survivors of these tragedies like Sen. Tom Sullivan. Republicans consistently believe they are helping themselves by dragging one of the most sympathetic figures in Colorado politics into their attacks on Colorado gun laws passed in direct response to the mass shooting that killed Sullivan’s son.

They are not. Sometimes it honestly seems as though Republican hypocrisy on issues like gun safety is so audacious that it stuns audiences into either not believing their lying eyes or rationalizing it into something less villainous. No one is this monstrous of a hypocrite, right?

Yes, they are. Tell us how they are not.