Denver City Council Bans Concealed Carry In City Parks and Buildings Including Dozens of Mountain Parks

Posted on by Lesley Hollywood

Denver City Council Bans Concealed Carry In City Parks and Buildings Including Dozens of Mountain Parks

After roughly a month of formalities, on Monday, May 16 the Denver City Council officially voted to ban permitted concealed carry of a firearm in parks and buildings owned by, leased by, and leased to the city.

The ordinance passed 9-3 with Councilmembers Candi CdeBaca, Jamie Torres, and Kevin Flynn voting against the ban.

A violation of the ban would result in a $50 fine for the first offense and a $999 fine for any subsequent offense. This is a bit laughable because the same city council voted not long ago to forgo collecting any fine of $300 or less due to equality concerns.

Thanks to the passage of SB21-256 last year which was a repeal and replace of the long standing state preemption law, localities can now create their own gun laws as long as they are more strict than state law. This includes counties, municipalities, special districts and college campuses.

This ban includes dozens of mountain parks in other counties that are owned by the City of Denver, including the infamous 868 acre Red Rocks Park in Jefferson County, 3000 acre Winter Park Resort in Grand County, 1000 acre Daniels Mountain Park in Douglas County, and 160 acre Summit Lake Park in Clear Creek County. Most of the other parks are located in Jefferson County where enforcement would be the responsibility of the sheriff who has already made it clear he will not enforce concealed carry bans even when passed into law by those who have jurisdiction over his county. See a map of all parks owned by Denver here.

During the council meeting, public comment on this particular agenda item was denied by council leadership stating “they had already allowed public comment during the first committee meeting”. That didn’t stop those wanting to speak about this ban from utilizing general public comment time to express their views. The majority of the speakers spoke in opposition to the ban citing the need for the right to self defense in the crime ridden city. Denver limits their general public comment time to 30 minutes, so it’s difficult to say how many people who wanted to speak were silenced.

An amendment was introduced by Councilwoman Candi CdeBaca that would have exempted parks from the ordinances. This amendment was rejected again on the same 9-3 vote. The amendment stated:

This amendment removes parks from the scope of this ordinance for several reasons:

First, there are major concerns about the ability to enforce in open space without profiling. Other cities have banned guns in city owned buildings because it is enforceable. Given the national and historical data about law enforcement’s racial bias in relation to pre-textual interactions, removing parks from this ordinance would reduce potential for law enforcement to racially profile people and use unwarranted force on “suspected” violators of this ordinance.

Second, if parks are not removed from this ordinance, Open Space including mountain park parking lots could become targets for car break-ins when firearms are left in vehicles. The amount of stolen guns from cars is increasing and the current ordinance would encourage CCW carriers to leave guns in cars.

Councilwoman CdeBaca pleaded with the council to reject this ban based on how law enforcement responds to reports of individuals with firearms, citing several instances where police had arrived with guns drawn based on “see something, say something” antics from bystanders. She ultimately told council they will “have blood on their hands” when this ban goes awry, which it will. CdeBaca said she fears the ban will not be enforceable without profiling, something that goes against everything the council has promised to change over the past two years. At a prior meeting CdeBaca had requested Denver Police Department present council with a written protocol of how they would handle reports that someone was possibly concealed carrying. This written protocol never materialized along with answers to many other questions that had previously been brought up.

Councilman Flynn reiterated again and again that there is no evidence that legally permitted concealed carry holders were a danger,  but instead it was those who do not obey laws who are the real menace to the city and should be the focus of council, and more importantly, law enforcement who is already stretched so thin in a city where crime is skyrocketing. Councilman Flynn also echoed CdeBaca’s concerns about racial profiling and pointed to data provided by CBI that showed the fastest growing demographic among those applying for concealed carry permits are among the Black community.

In the past two years, the City of Denver has seen a startling increase in crime. They closed 2021 out with 96 homicides, the most in over 30 years, and 2022 is already poised to break that record. Not one of these crimes was committed by a concealed carry permit holder, although applications for concealed carry permits has been steadily rising as 911 callers are placed on hold during emergencies, police response times are dangerously slow with an average of 11.6 minutes in 2019, and the citywide efforts to defund the police have left many residents realizing they need to be prepared to defend themselves.

Additionally, auto thefts have risen by 5,100% in Colorado, according to the Colorado Independent Auto Dealers Association. And in the first three months of this year, the Denver Police Department said five catalytic converters are reported stolen on average each day.

And turns out Colorado is now #1 in the nation for bank robberies! Which elected officials blame on also being #1 for Fentanyl.

But the city’s solution to this is to disarm law abiding citizens?

Yes, apparently so. And when the disarmed law abiding become victims of people who don’t care about the city’s ineffective silly laws, that same council will use their still warm bodies to push for even more gun control.

It should be noted that open carry has long been illegal in Denver, as is concealed carry without a permit.

Watch video of the public comment session HERE.
Watch video of the debate on the ordinance HERE.

 

Donate & Get A Sticker!

Help us fight the radical gun control extremists throughout Colorado by making a donation of $5 or more and get your choice of one of these weatherproof, scratch resistant stickers that are made in the U.S.A.

CLICK HERE to get yours!

*Contributions are not tax deductible.



 

Edgewater, CO Gets Flooded With Opposition Over Proposed Gun Control, Scales It Back

Posted on by Lesley Hollywood

Edgewater, CO Gets Flooded With Opposition Over Proposed Gun Control, Scales It Back

On Tuesday, April 19 the Edgewater City Council held a work session to discuss a whole laundry list of potential gun control ordinances the city could consider passing. This was on the heels of another work session they’d held where a representative from gun control extremist group Ceasefire Colorado gave a presentation about how to “reduce gun violence” in their city, during which they provided grossly inaccurate information to the council. It should be noted Edgewater is a city of 5,000 people and less than 1 square mile that sits in the suburbs west of Denver in Jefferson County.

Here is the list the City Council discussed item by item during Tuesday’s meeting (read our prior writeup here):

  1. Prohibiting open carry city-wide.
  2. Prohibiting concealed carry in city-owned buildings and areas, including:
    1. Civic Center and city parks.
  3. Prohibiting conceal carry in other areas and buildings in Edgewater, including:
    1. Bars and liquor stores.
    2. Daycare centers and preschools.
    3. Medical facilities, including hospitals.
    4. Mental Health Care facilities and substance abuse treatment facilities
    5. Event venues, theaters, etc.
  4. Banning specific weapons, including:
    1. So-called “assault weapons”
    2. Large capacity magazines.
    3. So-called “ghost guns”
    4. Trigger activators such as bump stocks.
    5. Certain ammunition, such as 50-caliber, or armor piercing.
  5. Purchase and transfer of weapons, including:
    1. Setting a minimum age of 21 for all weapons and establishing a waiting period of 3-10 days.
  6. Regulating gun dealers with such things as (but not all inclusive):
    1. Extensive on-site security including video surveillance, steel bars, locked up firearms, behind counter storage of all guns, among other things.
    2. Prohibiting the display of firearms and ammunition in windows.
    3. Increasing standards for all employees.
    4. Periodic inventory reporting.
    5. Required reporting of certain sales.
    6. Required signage on gun violence issues.
    7. Prohibiting retail in residential neighborhoods.
    8. Reporting of stolen firearms within 48 hours.

As the meeting began, Edgewater Mayor John Beltrone was clearly surprised by the number of people who had filled the council chambers both in person and online. Dozens were there to provide public comment. Mayor Beltrone emphasized again and again that nothing was going to be voted on during the meeting, that it was all just discussion, as if we aren’t hip as to where these ordinances begin.

For 3 1/2 hours the council went through the list line by line, with each item they allowed a representative from Ceasefire to “explain” what it was and why it was needed. The information given by Ceasefire was so warped and inaccurate that several people corrected her during public comment. This so-called expert insisted 50 cal ammo was used by civilians to shoot airplanes out of the sky! Dead serious.

The city attorney then addressed the legal issues with each item, most of which he made clear the Supreme Court has yet to make rulings on, so pursuing them would undoubtedly mean the city would find it’s self embroiled in lawsuits.

There was a lot of confusion among council members and the city attorney about things like what a “ghost gun” actually is, let alone any knowledge about the current laws surrounding private gun making and non-serialized firearms. In fact, most of the items on the list they lacked knowledge of current  law. This was glaringly obvious when they decided to pursue 6.8 on the list – requiring gun stores to report stolen guns to law enforcement within 48 hours. This is already a Federal Law.

During the public comment period, dozens of people spoke in opposition to their gun control list, some discussing how they had moved out of Denver to Edgewater so they had the ability to defend their families, unlike Denver who continues to restrict the right to self defense further and further. Two people spoke in support of Edgewater’s proposed measures.

By the end of the meeting, most of the list was scrapped with a decision to move forward with yet another work session to discuss the following: Item 2 – banning concealed carry on city property; Item 3.2 banning concealed carry in daycare and preschools; Item 4.3 banning ghost guns; and Item 6.8 requiring gun stores to report lost or stolen guns within 48 hours. They promised next time to bring in some experts from “both sides”. We’ll see if they follow up on this, but we’ve reached out to help facilitate it.

At the time of this writing, Edgewater has not set a date for the next work session. We’ll keep you updated.

Thank you to everyone who spoke up. Gun control is like a cancer that will spread if we aren’t diligent every time it tries to rear it’s ugly head. You may not live in Edgewater, but your community is watching – and hopefully taking note that the people won’t be happy if they try to bring this to your town.

Donate & Get A Sticker!

Help us fight the radical gun control extremists throughout Colorado by making a donation of $5 or more and get your choice of one of these weatherproof, scratch resistant stickers that are made in the U.S.A.

CLICK HERE to get yours!

*Contributions are not tax deductible.



 

Recap Of Denver’s Really Messy Concealed Carry Ban Hearing

Posted on by Lesley Hollywood

CO Governor Issues Exec Order Altering Concealed Carry Permit Requirements Amid Coronavirus Outbreak

In case you missed the news last week about Denver’s unprecedented move to ban concealed carry in city parks and buildings owned by, leased by, or leased to the City of Denver, it was probably because the mainstream media completely ignored it. But we’re all over it.

The first hearing took place on Wednesday, April 13 in the Denver Safety, Housing, Education & Homelessness Committee. At the end of the meeting it was decided to postpone “action” until the many questions and concerns brought up during the meeting could be addressed. They will bring it back to this committee on April 27th.  CLICK HERE to email the entire committee at once.

The hearing was a mess. Assistant City Attorney Reggie Nubine led the presentation, which you can watch HERE. After his presentation, the public was invited to speak on the proposal. Of the 12 who had signed up, 2 were ultimately unavailable when it came time to speak, 7 spoke against the proposal, and 3 spoke in favor. This was followed by an extensive amount of discussion among the council and committee members. Question after question came up that no one from the City Attorney’s office was able to answer, something that anyone should find incredibly alarming while trying to push rights-crushing laws for their citizens.

I’ll break down some of the more glaring questions here:

Why are they doing this?

It’s part of the “Mayor’s Vision” as laid out in the 2022 Public Safety Action Plan (page 5, City Attorney’s Office, item 2).

It was pointed out that in the Mayor’s actual Safety Plan document it says “Developing and implementing a Conceal Carry Ban in city-owned facilities” and nowhere does it mention “leased to or leased by” buildings, or parks. When asked about the expansion to include this additional criteria, a representative for the city attorney’s office stumbled with an answer only to eventually say they were sure it was part of a “future plan”.

How will this law be enforced? Will they implement stop and frisk policies?

They will be relying on a “see something, say something” policy as enforcement. For example if someone inside a library were to think they may have seen a concealed firearm when another patron bends over, the person who saw it is supposed to report it to the library staff who will then report it to local law enforcement to handle. Because we all know cops have nothing better to do with their time in Denver.

No answer about stop and frisk policies.

If this is a “see something, say something” enforcement policy that relies on citizens policing citizens then engaging law enforcement, does it open the door to racial profiling? Could a person simply call the police on a black person in a park and say they saw a hidden gun and have that person be targeted by law enforcement? 

No answer, of course.

What would be the step by step law enforcement protocol to handling these reports?

No one had any idea.

What are the demographic trends of concealed carry permit holders over the past 5 years? 

No one has looked into this.

What other constitutional rights are fully banned on public property in Denver?

None that anyone is aware of.

Are parking lots included and with the requirement to now leave firearms in cars instead of carrying on body, are they creating a bigger problem that could lead to even more increased firearm theft, as there is hard data behind the use of stolen firearms in crime?

No parking lots are not included in the ban. Crickets on the rest.

What about parks outside of Denver owned by the city of Denver? Several were mentioned including parks in Cherry Creek, Douglas County, and Winter Park. Had the city attorney’s office corresponded with law enforcement in these areas to see if they are willing to enforce such a ban?

Yes, it does include parks outside of Denver if they are owned by the city of Denver – and turns out there are a lot. Park rangers are in charge of these parks but they would not be in charge of enforcement, instead they would be expected to report anyone they may suspect of concealed carrying a firearm to local law enforcement who would be responsible for enforcement. Yet no one actually asked those local law enforcement agencies how they felt about this.

Why are the only stakeholders anti-gun groups and have they reached out to groups representing those with concealed carry permits?

During the presentation, a slide showing stakeholders as Everytown for Gun Safety, Ceasefire, and Moms Demand Action was presented. Glaringly absent from stakeholders was anyone who actually works with those who own firearms and exercise their right to self defense. When asked if they’d reached to other groups, their answer was no, and again, a whole lot of stumbling around an answer took place.

What is the process when obtaining a concealed carry permit in Denver? Do they inform the recipient of local laws?

Fingerprinting, background check, completed training – and no, they don’t inform permit recipients of the laws, they are expected to know them.

How much would signage cost?

No one knows but they anticipate doing it in a phased plan that would update signage language as signs need replaced.

So, what’s next? The same committee will reconvene to discuss again on April 27, 2022 at which time hopefully the questions above will be answered. It’s unknown at this time if they will be accepting public comment again but regardless citizens can and should attend in person if possible.

During the meeting, one councilwoman gave a tone deaf speech about how even though they know they can’t enforce laws like this, it sends a “message” to the community that guns aren’t welcome here. Well, legal guns anyway. I can’t help but point out how everything she said goes against #2 in their larger vision because as is obvious from all of the questions above, there are some glaring issues with this increasing negative law enforcement contact with the public.

 

 

Donate & Get A Sticker!

Help us fight the radical gun control extremists down at the capitol this legislative session by making a donation of $5 or more and get your choice of one of these weatherproof, scratch resistant stickers that are made in the U.S.A.

CLICK HERE to get yours!

*Contributions are not tax deductible.



 

 

Denver Moves To Ban Concealed Carry In Public Parks & Buildings – SPEAK UP NOW!

Posted on by Lesley Hollywood

Denver Moves To Ban Concealed Carry In Public Parks & Buildings – SPEAK UP NOW!

In an unprecedented, yet unsurprising move, Denver City Council will begin the process to outlaw the legal concealed carry of handguns in public parks and buildings that are owned by, leased by, or leased to the City of Denver.

Because, ya know, criminals totally care about concealed carry permits and gun laws.

In the past two years, the City of Denver has seen a startling increase in crime. They closed 2021 out with 96 homicides, the most in over 30 years, and 2022 is already poised to break that record. Not one of these crimes was committed by a concealed carry permit holder, although applications for concealed carry permits has been steadily rising as 911 callers are placed on hold during emergencies, police response times are dangerously slow with an average of 11.6 minutes in 2019, and the citywide efforts to defund the police have left many residents realizing they need to be prepared to defend themselves.

But the city’s solution to this is to disarm law abiding citizens?

Yes, apparently so. And when the disarmed law abiding become victims of people who don’t care about the city’s ineffective silly laws, that same council will use their still warm bodies to push for even more gun control.

It should be noted that open carry has long been illegal in Denver, as is concealed carry without a permit.

Here are the details and we need YOU to speak up! 

The proposed legislation is File #22-0401: Amends Chapters 38 & 39 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code to prohibit concealed carry within city parks and buildings owned by, leased by, or leased to the city. 

The first hearing on this issue will be Wednesday, April 13 at 10:30AM in the Denver Safety, Housing, Education & Homelessness Committee. This meeting is virtual only and will include a briefing, followed by 15 minutes of public comment (2 minutes each), discussion among council members, then action. If it passes this committee, it will then move on to the full city council and will be heard at a future regular meeting. We will keep you updated on it’s progress.

To provide public comment, you must sign up between 9AM and 10AM on Wednesday, April 13 (you cannot sign up before). To sign up (again, during that time only) go to www.denvergov.org/councilpublicinput and click on “Public Input in Committee” and follow the prompts from there.

The meeting will be held virtually via Zoom. Link to participate/watch: zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_SrJLqP3TTRqWZrnyFczQ1A
Password: DENVER

CLICK HERE to email every committee member at once.

If you are a Denver resident, work in Denver, or travel to or through Denver often, we need you to speak up and take action on this!

Feel free to contact us with any questions and we’ll do our best to get them answered.

Read more about the proposed legislation here: https://denver.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5545923&GUID=AECE25F5-02A6-4F05-AFDB-5A6738F0A104&Options=ID%7CText%7C&Search=22-0401

Download and read through the proposed presentation documents:

BR22 0401 CAO City Building Gun Prohibition v14
BR22 0401 CAO Concealed Carry
City Building Gun Prohibition (committee)
Concealed Carry FAQs
Concealed Carry PPT – Safety Cmte 4.13 (1)
Concealed Carry PPT – Safety Cmte 4.13

Donate & Get A Sticker!

Help us fight the radical gun control extremists down at the capitol this legislative session by making a donation of $5 or more and get your choice of one of these weatherproof, scratch resistant stickers that are made in the U.S.A.

CLICK HERE to get yours!

*Contributions are not tax deductible.



New CO Gun Law Could Have Disarmed Johnny Hurley

Posted on by Lesley Hollywood

New CO Gun Law Could Have Disarmed Johnny Hurley

Two days prior to a violent madman with a vengeance being killed by an armed citizen with a concealed carry permit, Colorado Governor Jared Polis signed a bill that would allow any locality in the state to ban concealed carry. To be exact, the bill allows for counties, municipalities, special districts, and college campuses to ban what the terrified demanding moms kept referring to as “hidden guns” during the hours of bill testimony. For reference, Colorado has 64 counties, 217 municipalities, 2800 special districts, and 62 college campuses. The gun control extremists elected to the state legislature, along with the governor, somehow felt THIS was going to make society a safer place. Arvada proved a different story.

On Monday, June 22nd Johnny Hurley was in the Arvada Army Navy Surplus store when he heard 15-20 shots from a rifle or tactical shotgun in the square not even 50 yards away. A deranged individual had ambushed Arvada police officer Gordon Beesley, taking his life in a matter of seconds. According to first hand accounts of what happened next, Hurley exited the store in the direction of the gunfire. The madman briefly went out of view behind the library after firing the initial 10-15 shots. Johnny shouted at onlookers behind him to stay inside and hide because the gunman was coming back. Johnny used this as an opportunity to run towards the library where the shooter was and hide behind a brick wall. Upon the shooter walking again back toward the square, Johnny pulled out his concealed pistol and shot 5-6 rounds toward the suspect, killing him. What happened next remains under investigation, but Arvada PD has released that Hurley was shot by a responding Arvada police officer claiming Hurley was holding the shooters rifle. Arvada police are not equipped with bodycams, so the investigation is ongoing.

Situations like this are chaotic, fast, and fluid. Anyone who runs toward gunfire knows there is a chance they may not make it out alive. But heroes like Johnny are willing to take the risk, and we will never know how many lives Johnny saved that day, because when lives aren’t lost, it’s much harder for the gun grabbers to get a body count to exploit in an effort to push for their next ineffective gun control law.

Yet these are the people, the Johnnys of the world, are who our lawmakers wish to disarm, and laws like SB21-256 which I referenced above are evidence.  They never ask themselves how they can stop the madman. They will never ask if their fever pitch, yet hollow, anti-police rhetoric over the past year pushed this evil individual to feel he was justified in his desire to ambush police, innocent bystanders be damned. Hell, maybe this guy even believed he was doing it on their behalf. I say their rhetoric is hollow because it is. If they truly cared about law enforcement reform and decreasing citizen-police interaction, they wouldn’t create a bill that allows 3,143 different localities within the state to create different laws affecting gun owners of every race, gender, creed, and sexual orientation, which SB21-256 did. Their hollow virtue signaling is dangerous.

Johnny Hurley was a friend to many freedom fighters in Colorado. I met him briefly in 2019 when I spoke regularly about Colorado’s Red Flag law. He was a supporter and protector of all our rights. He spoke frequently about his desire to protect others, if need be.

According to friend Elliot Darling:

“He always had the gun with him, and we were always like, ‘What are you going to do with that?’ And he was like, ‘Well one day, you never know.’ And of course, that one day came, and he was prepared.”

Patrons who were in nearby restaurants when shots rang out continue to leave comments on a GoFundMe set up for Johnny by a friend, thanking him for his heroic acts.

“My parents and I were in the Schoolhouse restaurant when shots rang out. I have two small kids at home and I thought I would never see them again. John is a true hero and I am forever in debt to him. My heart breaks for the loss of his life. Prayers to his family and friends.” – Brittany M.

“John saved my and my girlfriends life. We were in the direct line of fire, in the So Radish restaurant. Bullets came through the window and we took cover under the table as the shooting continued. Knowing we were trapped and easy targets if the gunman came in, we ran to the back of the restaurant. I have no doubt whatsoever that if John had not taken an active role in stopping the gunman, many more innocent people would have died. I wish I could thank him in person and I wish I could give much more. I won’t forget him for as long as I live. Thank you John for your bravery!!!” – Tory F.

It’s also worth noting the store Johnny was in was not a gun free zone. Had it been, he may have left his firearm in the car, like gun rights supporter Denny Stong, who was killed unarmed during the March massacre inside a nearby Boulder King Soopers. Twenty year old Stong had just returned from shooting when he was killed. He had told friends and family he couldn’t wait to turn 21 so he could get his concealed carry permit. In Kroger stores like King Soopers though, even if he had been 21, that would have been against their “gun free” policy – a policy that does nothing to stop those wishing to do harm but certainly does stop many who don’t want to break the rules.

I’ll end with a powerful statement a friend and fellow supporter of the right to self defense, Greg Powers, wrote:

When the gun control extremists start with the narrative that citizens should not carry weapons or intervene in dangerous situations, our verbal response should be logical and directly to the point of motivation behind responding to these situations.

In Florida, Officer Scot Peterson was getting paid while he stood outside Marjory Stoneman high school for 48 minutes listening to rifle fire while a shooter walked through the school unimpeded. In Arvada, armed citizen Johnny Hurley voluntarily RAN toward the gunfire in less than a minute to save lives. He shot the suspect and ended the attack. If shit hits the fan near your loved ones, who would you rather have nearby?

Chances are unless someone is running errands alone, they will be out with friends or family. Eating Dinner, shopping, etc. They will be the first responder not only for themselves, but for their friends/family. Asking them to wait for police to respond and then interpret the situation (who/where are the bad guys etc.) is going to be too late. If an armed parent had been outside Marjory Stoneman when the shooting began, I guarantee they would have done the same thing Johnny Hurley did in Arvada and run toward the sound of gunfire. They would NOT be sitting outside for 48 minutes thinking “gee, I hope my kid is ok”

Rest in Peace Mr. Hurley.

Johnny Hurley will always hold a special place in my heart as a hero, right up there with Kendrick Castillo, the brave 18 year old young man who rushed a fellow student, and killer, during the 2019 STEM School Shooting. Because of Kendrick’s actions that day, none of his classmates died, although he did.

Here is a link to Johnny’s GoFundMe: https://www.gofundme.com/f/good-samaritan-john-hurley

Here is a link to an event to honor Johnny on Saturday, June 26th at 1pm in Longmont, CO: https://www.facebook.com/events/541045126925632

Five of Colorado’s Ten Safest Cities Are In This ONE Second Amendment Sanctuary County

Posted on by Lesley Hollywood

Five of Colorado's Ten Safest Cities Are In A Second Amendment Sanctuary County : Rally for our Rights

A list of Colorado’s safest cities based on FBI crime statistics has been released, and five of them are in Second Amendment Sanctuary county, Weld County, including the top spot. Could it be that gun ownership and independent self protection leads to less crime?  More information on data and methodology can be found here.

The top ten safest cities are as follows:

  1. Firestone (Weld)
  2. Louisville (Boulder)
  3. Frederick (Weld)
  4. Golden (Jefferson)
  5. Broomfield (Broomfield)
  6. Windsor (Weld)
  7. Parker (Douglas)
  8. Erie (Weld)
  9. Johnstown (Weld)
  10. Steamboat Springs (Routt)

Weld County Sheriff Steve Reams has led the Second Amendment Sanctuary movement across the state and is an outspoken opponent to Colorado’s poorly written and unconstitutional “Red Flag” ERPO legislation, which ultimately passed by a single vote.  The law will go into effect January 1, 2020.

Five of Colorado's Ten Safest Cities Are In A Second Amendment Sanctuary County : Rally for our Rights

Back in April he stated he’d rather sit in his own jail than enforce such unconstituational orders on the citizens of his county.

“If a judge issues an order saying a person can’t possess weapons, and also compels law enforcement to perform a search warrant to seek out those guns, I believe that’s a violation of a person’s constitutional rights,” Reams said.

“I have a hard choice at that point. I can potentially violate someone’s constitutional rights. Or I can violate a court order. I would rather be on the side of violating a court order than someone’s rights.”

More than 50 of Colorado’s 64 sheriffs opposed HB19-1177, “Red Flag” Extreme Risk Protection Orders ERPO, and 37 counties have declared Second Amendment Sanctuary status.

In addition to having five of the top ten safest cities, Weld county has below state average suicide rates. This is important because Giffords group has been pushing the narrative that Second Amendment Sanctuary counties have the highest suicide rates, a narrative that is parroted by Moms Demand Action.  What they fail to mention is MOST of these counties have very small populations. For example, they are using Custer county’s calculated suicide by firearm rate of 49 per 100,000 people to make their case, but Custer county has a population of 4,900 people and ONE suicide by firearm.

Weld County Sheriff Steve Reams regularly testified to his concern that Colorado’s “Red Flag” legislation as written does nothing to aid those who do need help, and instead sends deputies to confiscate firearms from someone who may be suicidal, while leaving the person in crisis.  Such actions will only escalate and exacerbate a distressing situation.  Compassion may be lost on the gun grabbers, but it is not lost on us.

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms must always be defended!
Get a sticker for a donation to Rally for our Rights of $5 or more.
Other designs available.
CLICK HERE TO GET YOURS

come and find it sticker for donation to rally for our rights

Gun Violence Website Honors Odessa, TX Shooter As “Gun Violence” Victim

Posted on by Lesley Hollywood

I’ve started making it a habit to check the “Gun Violence Memorial” website anytime I hear of a justified death by firearm.  These gun grabbers waste no time adding evil perpetrators who were killed in self defense to their website. Gotta pump those numbers up, right?  Today I checked for the murderer from Saturday’s Odessa, TX shooting spree and as expected, they’ve set up a page for him, even allowing people to light virtual candles in his honor.

I’ve written about this disturbing “Gun Violence Memorial” website before, most recently when they honored the Dayton, OH shooter as well.  They claim to be about honoring victims of gun violence, keeping daily stats, and allowing people to light candles for lost loved ones.  On the surface it sounds genuine, until you start digging deeper and realize they also “honor” perpetrators who are killed justifiably, whether by their victims or by law enforcement.  If a gun is used, they’re honored.

This website gets their information from the “Gun Violence Archive” another website which on the surface sounds honest, but again, they also count perpetrators as gun violence victims to pump up their numbers, as well as create their own definitions of “mass shooting” to drive hysteria and instill fear. Did you hear the recent mass shooting number for 2019 as 283?  Yeah, they got that from them.  We’ve debunked the Gun Violence Archive’s mass shooting numbers before (and I’ll be doing it again soon).  Click here to read more on that.

I wrote last year about the memorializing of a 60 year old man who was killed in self defense by a 23 year old woman while he was bashing her head into the guardrail during a Washington road rage incident.  In that instance, eventually the push back to the “Gun Memorial” site was so massive they removed him.  Good.  They should remove Seth Ator too.  In fact, they should remove anyone who was justifiably killed by firearm.  Guns also save lives.  They did for that young woman in Washington, and they did this past weekend in Odessa, TX.

Real, honest conversations need to be had about these tragedies, but when those wishing to disarm us use such dishonest tactics to sway public opinion, they can’t be taken seriously.  And I must ask the question: does memorializing mass shooters lead to more mass shooters?  

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms must always be defended!
Get a sticker for a donation to Rally for our Rights of $5 or more.  Other designs available.
CLICK HERE TO GET YOURS

Gun rights are womens rights sticker - Rally for our Rights

Rep Jason Crow Uses Felon With Violent Record To Push For Gun Control At SOTU

Posted on by Lesley Hollywood

Rep Jason Crow Uses Felon With Violent Record To Push For Gun Control At SOTU Rally for our Rights Colorado

Tonight, during the State Of The Union, Colorado Congressman Jason Crow has announced he will be inviting the mother of a young man who was killed by gunshot in Aurora, Colorado last year.  The Congressman is using Mary Majok, a Sundanese refugee, and the tragedy of losing her son, to exploit what he refers to as “gun violence” and the steps he believes should be taken to end it.  He even goes so far as to compare Colorado to the horror ridden civil war in Sudan which Mary and thousands of others have fled.  Pretty sure the skyrocketing population in Colorado would disagree that people are fleeing the state due to gun violence.

The use of this individual victim has a glaring problem.  The perpetrator: Joseph Lugo.  

On March 21st, 2018, Joseph Lugo shot and killed Mary’s son, Potros Mabany, 21, and wounded another man.  Mabany was shot twice.

Lugo, a native of New York, has a lengthy arrest record in Colorado. He has multiple weapons arrests — including for being a felon in possession of a weapon and for having a defaced firearm — as well as rape, assault, menacing and kidnapping charges on his record.

In fact, Lugo is a prime example of what gun rights advocates repeat almost ad nauseam: criminals don’t follow laws, only the law abiding do.  Reg flag legislation, universal background checks, and banning “military-style assault rifles” wouldn’t have stopped Lugo – all gun control slated on Congressman Crow’s agenda.

Lugo was a public safety threat and we are glad he is off the streets.  People like him are why people like us carry.  People like him are why we want to have rifles available to defend our homes.  And if Congressman Crow really cared about the safety of his constituents, he’d be talking about how they can keep themselves safe, not pushing to disarm them.

We will never eradicate evil, but we can defend ourselves from it. 

 

Questions Everyone Should Be Asking About Red Flag Emergency Risk Protection Gun Laws

Posted on by Lesley Hollywood

Questions Everyone Should Be Asking About Red Flag Emergency Risk Protection ERPO Gun Laws : Rally for our Rights Colorado

If you’re not familiar with Red Flag Laws, also known as Emergency Risk Protection Orders (ERPO),  you’re not paying enough attention.  And if you know what Red Flag Laws are and support them, you’re probably also not paying enough attention.

Red Flag Laws allow an intimate partner, former intimate partner, or family member to make a report to the courts with claims that an individual is going to either hurt themselves or others with a firearm.  Within 24 hours the court hears a preponderance of evidence and issues an order to have the persons gun confiscated.

To some people, this sounds good on the surface.  I mean, who doesn’t want to save lives?  But feel good laws like these do more harm than good, and this one is no exception.  In fact, it may be one of the worst.   These laws lack due process, they grossly violate our right to keep and bear arms, and they would have a chilling effect on free speech.  Not to mention they would prevent people who truly need help from seeking it – especially those who are suicidal.

There are many questions we should be asking.  Here are some that I’ve developed after reading through the language in these proposed bills in many states.

• How can lawmakers ensure a stalker or domestic abuser is prevented from using an ERPO to disarm their victims, potentially putting those in our society who need protection the most in harms way?

• Are there safeguards in place to prevent this from being used as a form of retaliation or as a hate crime – for example being used to disarm a transgender person, a person of color, or a certain religion?

• Why is all information such as accusers, allegations, accusations, etc sealed and require a court order for release?

• Many of these ERPO’s allow the accuser to report via telephone, as well as attend the initial hearing via telephone – making these easier to obtain than a Temporary Protection Order, opening the door to rampant abuse.

• What kind of proof is required that the accuser is or has been in an intimate relationship with the accused, or is a family member?

• What kind of punishment would be in a Red Flag Bill for false accusers?

• Will requiring police to confiscate the guns of people who could be innocent, put law enforcement officers in harms way?

• When these confiscation orders are being carried out, quite likely against someone who is innocent, will that put families and children at risk?

• Why are these laws being promoted as “mental health” laws when in fact they have no mental health components?

• Because the accused who would have their firearms confiscated has not been accused of a crime, they would not be eligible for a public defender to get their firearms back, leaving the poor in our society at a disadvantage.

Do you have other questions that I have missed?  Drop them in the comments.  

Here is how these laws would work:

Step 1: A petitioner (either a current or former intimate partner, or a family member, with no proof required) makes a report via telephone or in person that you have firearms, have bought firearms, or have bought ammunition – and that they have heard you make a threat that you may harm another or yourself.

Step 2: A court hearing is scheduled within 24 hours either over the phone or in person with the petitioner to determine if an Emergency Risk Protection Order (aka Red Flag Order) should be issued.  The one most important person notably missing from this hearing is YOU.  You are not even so much as informed that this hearing is taking place.  During this hearing the judge will hear a “preponderance of evidence” from the petitioner, and only the petitioner, with the goal to convince the fact finder that there is a greater than 50% chance that the claim is true.

Step 3: An Emergency Risk Protection Order (ERPO) is issued.  The sheriff’s department will visit your home and demand you turn over your firearms, and if you refuse to comply, they will be confiscated by force (placing everyone present in a dangerous situation).  YOU will be left alone, without what may be your most important means of self defense – your firearm – because someone just had it confiscated.  It doesn’t matter if you bought that firearm to protect yourself from a stalker, an abuser, or simply to walk home from work late at night. It also doesn’t matter if the person who requested your firearms be confiscated is that same abuser or stalker.

Step 4: Then, and only then, will you be given instructions as to how to defend yourself in court and get your firearms back.

You can read more about Colorado’s 2018 version of the Red Flag Bill here.  A new bill has not yet been introduced for the 2019 legislative session, but it undoubtedly will be.

If you want to be part of the fight to defend your gun rights, please subscribe to our email list and/or make a donation.

60 YO Man Killed In Self Defense By 23 YO Woman Is Memorialized As “Gun Violence” Victim

Posted on by Lesley Hollywood

60 YO Man Killed In Self Defense By 23 YO Woman Is Memorialized As “Gun Violence” Victim - Rally for our Rights - Bruce Jones Aubrey Bowlin

UPDATE:  On Sunday evening, December 16th, the GunMemorial website quietly removed this perpetrator from their pages after receiving so much backlash from this article.  Unfortunately, we have discovered thousands of other violent criminals who were killed in self defense on their site. We’ll be exposing some of the worst here soon.

On February 8, 2018 a young woman shot and killed her attacker during a public road rage incident.  23 year old Aubrey Bowlin, was riding her motorcycle along I-5 in Milton, Washington when an irate driver began to act recklessly.

According to witnesses, 60 year old Bruce Jones was distraught by the way Bowlin was driving her motorcycle.  He boxed her into a location she could not drive away from. Jones exited his vehicle and physically attacked the young woman who was sitting on her bike. A fight followed, initiated by the much larger man.  At one point, Bowlin head-butted Jones, who then drove Bowlin’s head into the jersey barrier before taking her to the ground.  He hit her and shook her, she described, like a dog shaking a toy in its mouth. He violently tried to rip her helmet off and was choking her with the neck strap.  She believed he was going to choke her to death. Bowlin shot Jones once in the chest when he attempted to climb on top of her.  Jones died at the scene.

No charges were filed and Bowlin was exonerated by the Pierce County Sheriff’s Department, as this was a clear case of self defense.  Bowlin was a permitted concealed pistol carrier.  She called 911 after ending the attack with her fatal shot, and waited at the scene.  She did everything right, although according to her, she still suffers from PTSD.

Seems like an open and shut case, right?  Nope.

It’s been discovered that the website gunmemorial.org, which puts up photos of people whose lives have been “lost to gun violence,” is memorializing this perpetrator as a “gun violence victim”.  In fact, 90 virtual candles have been lit for him at the time of this writing.  This is a man who nearly pummeled a 23 year old woman to death on the side of the interstate for the public to see.  And he is being held up as the victim by the anti-gun community.

60 YO Man Killed In Self Defense By 23 YO Woman Is Memorialized As “Gun Violence” Victim - Rally for our Rights - Bruce Jones Aubrey Bowlin

It begs the question of how many other of these so-called “victims” are actually perpetrators.  The anti-gun movement has adopted the term “homicide” when speaking of stats.  But did you know homicide and murder are not the same?  Homicide is all death except suicide – even justified deaths, such as those killed in self defense, as is the example here, as well as law enforcement related deaths.  Murder is a malicious act with the intent to cause death (or serious harm resulting in death).  Aubrey Bowlin could have been a murder victim, but she was not because instead she made Bruce Jones a homicide case.  See how that works?  With the ability to sway public opinion so easily by simply using a different word, it’s no wonder those who wish to to take away an individual’s right to self defense with a firearm would use the term homicide in their argument as it carries a much higher number.  A number that portrays perpetrators as victims.

It doesn’t take much digging into this Gun Memorial website to find their connection to the Gun Violence Archive – the website behind the widely spread number of 307 “mass shootings” in 2018 – a story we completely debunked after doing some serious research. (By the way, that real number is 6, not 307).  Gun Violence Archive also makes a habit out of holding up violent criminals as victims – simply by using the word homicide.

Why is it the same people who claim to support women’s rights, want to take away a woman’s right to defend herself with a firearm?  Help us get this billboard up by donating here: www.gofundme.com/gun-rights-billboards

gun rights womens rights billboard colorado rally for our rights