April 29, 2024 02:10 PM UTC

More Idiotic Gun Rights Talking Points from Republicans (Starring Gabe Evans)

• 4 Comments
• by: Colorado Pols

The 2024 Colorado legislative session is set to come to a close in less than two weeks (May 9). Democrats, who maintain majority control in both chambers, are scrambling to finish up some top legislative priorities. Republicans, who have no real ideas or policy aspirations of their own, continue to focus their efforts on wasting time and trying to prevent Democrats from doing what voters sent them to the State Capitol to do: Govern.

Republican lawmakers have been making some very silly arguments in opposition to basically anything Democrats have proposed, but those protestations have gotten particularly ridiculous when it comes to legislation focused on gun violence prevention (GVP). Third reading debate took place today in the House of Representatives on SB24-131 (Prohibiting Carrying Firearms in Sensitive Spaces).

Some Republicans, such as State Rep. Brandi Bradley (R-Littleton), have regularly repeated absurd talking points about how guns actually make people safer (Fact Check: Nope). Others, including State Rep. Richard Holtorf (R-Akron), continue to make abject fools of themselves by drawing attention to their own inability to safely carry personal firearms. When all else fails — and make no mistake, it has — the inevitable final argument from Republicans opposed to GVP legislation always ends up in the same place. This year, it was State Rep. Gabe-ish Evans (R-Adams County) who was entrusted to carry the stupid across the finish line.

Here’s some of what Evans had to say on Friday on the House Floor during second reading debate on SB24-131 (Prohibiting Carrying Firearms in Sensitive Spaces):

EVANS: Other things that we’ve heard as we’ve had conversations about this bill, one of the questions that I asked repeatedly in committee when we had this conversation is, why would someone with criminal intent comply with this bill? And I never got a good answer. I asked that probably 3 or 4 different times to 3 or 4 different panels of folks. Why would somebody with criminal intent comply with this bill? Didn’t get a good answer…

…And that is because laws don’t stop criminals from breaking the law. Criminals don’t follow the law. [Pols emphasis] If we’re talking about sensitive spaces, we’re talking about keeping folks safe on college campuses. Somebody with intent after deliberation isn’t going to follow this law…

Some criminals might not follow this law, so we shouldn’t bother trying. This “argument” inevitably surfaces whenever the legislature debates GVP measures. It’s always dumb, but it sounds particularly ridiculous coming from Evans, who is a former police officer (which is something he rarely fails to mention). If you follow this logic to its inevitable conclusion, you eventually have to acknowledge that there is no point in having any laws — let alone employing police officers to enforce them.

Murder is illegal in Colorado, but people still kill other people. We might as well just decriminalize murder and open up the jails!

You cool with that, Gabe?

Of course, you could apply this “argument” to basically any issue. You’re not supposed to foul your opponent in a basketball game, but fouls are still called regularly; the answer isn’t to just shrug and throw out the rulebook.

All laws are part of a social contract requiring the general assumption that people in a society agree to follow a shared set of guidelines. If your standard before passing a new law is that everyone agrees to follow that law…well, you’re wasting your time in general. If we’re not going to make GVP laws because some people might break them, why bother with any laws? Hell, why bother even having a state legislature?

Evans, BTW, is also currently running for a seat in Congress in CO-08. A guy who doesn’t think we should bother making laws at a state level wants to go to Washington D.C. to…what, not make laws at a federal level? (although that’s pretty much the state of the U.S. House of Representatives at this point)

These arguments are silly enough for one man and one issue, but Evans was not content to just repeat the same idiotic argument and leave it at that. He took it to a different level of dumb.

Evans’s comments included rants on claims that gun violence actually increases after a state passes GVP legislation and that people are safer in communities where there are more guns (both of which are completely untrue and have been debunked repeatedly), before claiming that we should have MORE guns mostly because people like them:

EVANS: Do people buy guns and that makes us less safe? Or do people feel less safe and then they go out and they buy a gun? Well guess what? We’ve got lots of polls that give us the answer to this. A Pew Research study found that 91% of people when they purchased a firearm, said they purchased that firearm because they felt less safe and because purchasing a firearm, training with that firearm, learning how to personally protect themselves made them feel more safe. 91% of folks who purchased a firearm said they did so because they felt unsafe, and purchasing that firearm made them feel more safe.

This last part is different. Evans gets lost in his own dumb rabbit hole by insisting that what really matters is that people feel safe — not whether or not they are actually safer. There are no legitimate factual arguments to support the idea that more guns make people more safe — the truth is very much the opposite.

Evans could stop here, but he is compelled to return to his, ‘Why have laws?’ logic by pointing to a controversial 2005 United States Supreme Court case called Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzalez in which SCOTUS ruled that a town and its police department could not be sued for failing to enforce a restraining order (which, in this case, ultimately led to the murder of three children).

EVANS: And in fact, that principle comes from a Supreme Court case that came out of Castle Rock…Castle Rock v. Gonzalez says that the government…the police department does not have…general liability. They are not generally responsible for everything that goes wrong in society. They are not generally responsible for every bad event that occurs. It’s a U.S. Supreme Court case. First responders, law enforcement, protectors only have specific liability. They are only liable for specific situations that they know about and are in a position to intervene.

So Senate Bill 24-131 really damages people’s sense of safety, people’s understanding of how to protect themselves in light of cases like Castle Rock v. Gonzalez, which clearly states that there is no there is no general liability for the government to be able to protect individual human beings. Individual human beings are responsible to protect themselves. It’s a U.S. Supreme Court case. You can go look it up. [Pols emphasis]

Wait, what? Evans might want to go “look it up” himself, because he has the point of this story almost completely backward.

If you’re not familiar with the background of Castle Rock v. Gonzalez, this is the story of a horrific crime and a failure to use a law effectively — not a failure of a law in itself. As NBC News reported in 2018:

Jessica Lenahan has gone through a mother’s worst nightmare, and it all took place on one night in June 1999. A new documentary portrays her ordeal.

The Castle Rock, Colorado, mother of four had successfully obtained a permanent restraining order against her emotionally abusive husband, Simon Gonzales, earlier that month, requiring him to remain at least 100 yards from her and her four children, except during specified visitation time. Despite that, he took his three daughters in violation of the restraining order. Lenahan frantically called the police for hours; they told her there was nothing they could do and to let them know if the girls did not come home.

In the early morning hours, Gonzales drove to the police station and started shooting; the police shot back. They found he had killed his three daughters; the bodies of Rebecca, 10, Katheryn, 9, and Leslie, 7, were found in his van.

The issue here was about the failure of Castle Rock law enforcement officials to effectively enforce a restraining order. Nobody was saying that restraining orders were a dumb tool because one guy refused to abide by the law.

Remember, Evans is a former police officer who regularly reminds people that he is a former police officer. In his blind opposition to any GVP legislation, which groups like the NRA and RMGO demand of Republicans — Evans ends up in a questionable spot: 

Does Gabe Evans oppose ALL gun laws?

Because if you take his logic at face value, that’s the end conclusion. Or as Evans actually said, out loud:

EVANS: Because government is not generally responsible to protect citizens from every bad thing that happens in society. So again, going back to the original question that I asked, why would somebody with criminal intent comply with this bill? I can’t find any reason that somebody with criminal intent would comply with this, with this bill.

But the second premise of this bill, 24-131, is that there are places that would be made more safe by prohibiting firearms. Folks, again, the data does not bear that out. 85% of mass shootings occurred in places where guns were already prohibited. Again, the only person that’s going to comply with the law that says, don’t bring a gun here is somebody that’s already law abiding, somebody that is not law abiding is going to ignore that sign, ignore that directive, and bring a firearm there, especially as I asked originally if they have criminal intent. If, as in the case of the UCCS shooting, after deliberation and with intent, they intended to commit a crime with that firearm. Does having sensitive spaces that prohibit firearms make folks more safe?

Maybe Evans can create a commercial for his congressional campaign in which he reminds voters that “laws aren’t 100% effective” and “cops don’t have to help you.”

It almost doesn’t sound weird at all when you say it that way. [insert severe eye-roll]