Longmont, CO Advances Gun Control Discussion, Opposition Is Fired UP

The Longmont, Colorado City Council voted to advance a discussion about gun control at this past Tuesday’s meeting.

This came after they held a nearly two hour pre-session meeting specific to gun control prior to gaveling in to their regular meeting. The gun control-focused pre-session was not broadcast virtually and did not accept public comment, although it was open to the public.

Residents of Longmont, nearly all oppose to the gun control measures, filled the chambers during both meetings. Many took turns at the mic addressing the council during the general public comment portion of the regular meeting. For 2 1/2 hours the concerned citizens spoke to the various proposed ordinances, many pointing out that the only people impacted by such measures are the law abiding like themselves, and those wishing to do harm couldn’t care less what their silly laws say. Some gave testimony about moving to Longmont to escape crime in part because they could legally protect their families, and now that right was being stripped of them. A few folks wearing red Moms Demand Action shirts spoke to the council with their canned speeches and grossly inaccurate statistics. Another handful who were in support of the gun control had extremely bizarre stories about how the NRA, cocaine and board games has led to the fall of society.

A vote was taken to advance four of the six measures to a discussion at their next meeting. It was made clear by Mayor Joan Peck, this was not to be considered first reading, but was a discussion about what they should bring to first reading. Both councilmembers Aren Rodriguez and Susie Hildalgo-Fahring emphasized that although they were voting in favor of bringing the discussion forward, that did not imply their support.

The ordinances they moved forward to discussion include:

1.) Ban open carry citywide
2.) Raise age limit to purchase any firearm to 21
3.) 10 day waiting period
4.) Ban ghost guns
At this time, draft ordinances have not been released from the city.

The next Longmont City Council Meeting will be:

Tuesday, June 28th
Civic Center – Council Chambers
350 Kimbark St
Longmont, CO 80501

Sign up for public comment begins at 6:45pm.

CLICK HERE to email the entire council at once or use email address City_Council_Mayor@longmontcolorado.gov

Make some phone calls too! Get their phone numbers HERE.

Longmont is the fifth city in Boulder county to pursue these measures. Boulder, Superior, and Louisville have already each passed a package of six ordinances, including the four on Longmont’s list as well as an assault weapons ban and a concealed carry ban.

Lafayette has their second reading on gun control measures next week! If you are a Lafayette resident, please speak up! 

Click here for a list of the six ordinances they will be voting on.

Next Lafayette meeting:

Tuesday, June 21st
City Hall Council Chambers
1290 S Public Rd
Lafayette, CO
Or virtual

CLICK HERE to email Lafayette City Council at once

Rally for our Rights will be holding our Summer “Adopt-A-Highway” Roadside Clean Up on in Longmont on June 25th, from 1pm – 3pm. This event is open to the public and open carry encouraged! RSVP on Facebook HERE. Haven’t been to one of these clean ups? Check out this video to see how much fun we have: https://youtu.be/RjfptRcY3gc

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.

4 Boulder County Cities Poised To Pass ALL The Gun Control

The Colorado cities of Superior, Louisville, Lafayette, and Boulder all have a list of gun control on their City Council agendas for Tuesday, June 7th.

This coordinated effort is being pushed by assistant to Boulder City Council Taylor Reimann in conjunction with out-of-state gun control groups Gifford’s and Everytown For Gun Safety.

READ HERE the draft ordinances crafted specifically for Colorado back in Sept 2021.

There are a total of 6 ordinances being voted on by each town. Those are:

  • Banning the sale and possession of “assault weapons,” large-capacity magazines and rapid-fire trigger activators, raising the minimum age to purchase any firearm to 21.
  • Prohibiting the concealed carrying of firearms in “sensitive” public places including: any area owned by or controlled by the town, public parks or open space, protests, anywhere that serves alcohol, hospitals and other medical or mental health facilities, church, synagogue, mosque, temple or other place of worship, stadium or arena, courthouse, banks, theaters, child care centers or preschools, and more.
  • Prohibiting the open carrying of firearms in all public places.
  • Requiring all firearm dealers to post “warning” signs at all locations where firearms transfers take place.
  • Requiring a 10 day waiting period prior to the sale of firearms.
  • Regulating the manufacture and possession of non-serialized firearms or so-called “ghost guns”.

Here’s how to get involved. If you cannot attend a meeting, please take a moment to email them using the easy links below:

Boulder – 6pm – VIRTUAL ONLY 
Agenda and sign up to speak: https://bouldercolorado.gov/events/city-council-meeting-19
WATCH the meeting
CLICK HERE to email all Boulder council members at once

Louisville – 6pm – IN-PERSON at City Hall, 749 Main Street or VIRTUAL
Agenda and sign up to speak: https://www.louisvilleco.gov/local-government/government/city-council/city-council-meeting-agendas-packets-minutes
WATCH the meeting
CLICK HERE to email all Louisville council members at once

Superior – 8pm – VIRTUAL ONLY
Agenda and instructions to request to speak: https://www.superiorcolorado.gov/Home/Components/Calendar/Event/5819/19
WATCH the meeting
CLICK HERE to email all Superior council members at once

Lafayette – 5:30pm – IN-PERSON at City Hall Council Chambers 1290 S. Public Road or VIRTUAL
Agenda and instructions to sign up to speak: https://www.lafayetteco.gov/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/5281
WATCH the meeting
CLICK HERE to email all Lafayette council members at once

In addition to all this madness, a Colorado Open Records Act (CORA) request has revealed there are dozens more cities on the Colorado front range that may be part of this effort. The CORA exposed how council members were skirting Sunshine Laws in Colorado that require meetings with more than two officials from a governing body to be open to the public. We have more info about this coming out soon, but in the meantime read up on what we know at Complete Colorado.

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

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

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.


Edgewater, CO Wants To Strip Nearly All Gun Rights From Their Law Abiding Citizens

Edgewater, CO Wants To Strip Nearly All Gun Rights From Their Law Abiding Citizens


The small city of Edgewater, Colorado has a population of about 5,000 people and a police force of a whopping 15 officers. Yet they are about to turn their safe little town into the gun control virtue signaling capital of the state.

If you’re a resident, know residents, or even simply travel through or to Edgewater, please make sure to speak up and share this information.

According to an Edgewater City Council agenda for the April 19th meeting, the following will be considered for passage:

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

The city council will be discussing all these measures during their scheduled meeting at 6:30pm Tuesday, April 19th. You can attend the meeting in-person or virtual.

In-person: 1800 Harlan St, Edgewater, CO 80214

Virtual: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/593941517

CLICK HERE to email the entire council at once.

If you have trouble using that link, here is a simple list you can copy/paste into your email client.


More on this story from Complete Colorado: https://pagetwo.completecolorado.com/2022/04/15/city-of-edgewater-to-consider-sweeping-gun-rights-restrictions-concealed-carry-among-targets/


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

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.



Boulder CO Assault Weapon, Large Capacity Magazine Ban Overturned

Victory in Boulder! 

When Boulder, Colorado passed an “assault weapon” and large capacity magazine ban in 2018, gun owners scoffed at the ultra-liberal city’s agenda, unsurprised by the virtue signaling and visible presence of Bloomberg’s astroturf organization Moms Demand Action. Statistically, a person was more likely to be killed by baseball bat than by one of the firearms they were arbitrarily defining as “assault weapons” inside the city limits, those stats being ONE for death by baseball bat to ZERO for death by “assault weapon”.  The ordinance also restricted the age of purchase for a long gun to those 21 and over, and banned open carry of their arbitrarily defined assault weapons in the city of Boulder.

What did come as a surprise was that many Boulder residents weren’t okay with these new laws, and now after nearly three years and two legal challenges against the ordinance, a Boulder County judge has overturned it. 

This is a big win for those who fought against Boulder’s ban, such as Rally for our Rights who lead two large gun rights rallies in downtown Boulder and even held an AR-15 giveaway to raise money for the legal challenges.

Boulder CO Assault Weapons, Large Capacity Magazine Ban Overturned

The NRA backed lawsuit Chambers v Boulder sought injunctive relief claiming that two portions of the ordinance were preempted by Colorado state law, something that was argued repeatedly by gun owners, constitutional experts, and gun rights advocates during the heated debate leading up to the final passage of the ordinance.

Colorado’s preemption statute, CRS 29-11.7-103, states: “A local government may not enact an ordinance, regulation, or other law that prohibits the sale, purchase, or possession of a firearm that a person may lawfully sell, purchase, or possess under state or federal law. Any such ordinance, regulation, or other law enacted by a local government prior to March 18, 2003, is void and unenforceable.”

The two portions of the ordinance Chambers v Boulder claimed violated the preemption law were:

Count 1 – that the portions of the Ordinance banning the sale purchase, and possession of assault weapons, and enacting the certification process are preempted by state law;

Count 2 – that the portion of the Ordinance that ban Large Capacity Magazines are preempted by state law.

On March 12, 2021 Boulder County District Judge Andrew Hartman agreed with the NRA backed plaintiffs that Boulder’s ban on possessing and transferring commonly-possessed “assault weapons” and ten-round magazines was preempted by state law. Here is what he wrote in his final order, effectively overturning the ban:

“In sum, the Court finds that State of Colorado law preempts Boulder City Ordinance 8245 and Ordinance 8259 as they relate to the prohibition of the sale, possession, and transfer of assault weapons and LCMs, specifically the inclusion of “assault weapons” and “LCMs” in the definition of “illegal weapons” pursuant to Boulder Rev. Code § 5-8-2. These provisions are invalid, and enforcement of them is enjoined. The Court has determined that only Colorado state (or federal) law can prohibit the possession, sale, and transfer of assault weapons and large capacity magazines.”

Read the entire 22 page final order here.

Boulder still faces yet another lawsuit, backed by Mountain States Legal Foundation (MSLF). Unlike the NRA backed suit which solely targeted preemption, the MSLF legal challenge, Caldara v Boulder, began in U.S. District Court challenging the constitutionality of the Boulder ordinance, citing violation of the Second Amendment as well as preemption. The U.S. District Court of Colorado chose to abstain from hearing the case until the NRA backed state case was decided. MSLF appealed that decision in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, and most recently they filed a petition for Supreme Court review of the abstention issue. That was denied. A noteworthy aspect of the MSLF case is that in addition to challenging the firearm and magazine bans, it challenges the two other key points of the Boulder ordinance, both which were dismissed from the NRA one early on: 1.) the section prohibiting 18-20 year olds from purchasing long guns, and 2.) open carry of “assault weapons” in Boulder.

The city of Boulder can appeal the most recent decision, and if they do, it could eventually land in front of the Colorado Supreme Court. Colorado’s current Supreme Court has not been friendly to gun related issues on the grounds of preemption, primarily their most recent 2020 decision on the RMGO backed legal challenge against the states ban of magazines larger than 15 rounds. It should be noted that if it was to go to the Colorado Supreme Court and were decided in favor of Boulder, that would be the end of the NRA suit, as without a constitutional challenge, it cannot move to a higher court – but the MSLF suit could continue.

That said, the Boulder challenge is unique in that preemption law is specific to local government and does not specifically prohibit the legislature from enacting statewide laws.

The most notable time Colorado Supreme Court has heard a local government firearm preemption challenge was in 2005 after Denver sued the state of Colorado over the 2003 preemption law, saying the city should be able to enact it’s own laws under home rule. The was because Denver’s own firearm laws they had on the books since 1994 should have been nullified by the new preemption law. In the end, a Denver District Court judge agreed with the city, eventually landing the case in front of the Colorado Supreme Court.  The state’s highest court deadlocked and the rare split-ruling meant Denver prevailed in the case and the city could resume enforcing its firearm laws that had not been enforced during litigation. Many familiar with the case say the ruling was not based on the preemption law itself, but because Denver had enacted their law prior to the date the preemption law was enacted.

MSLFs case is still alive and well, although they will likely wait to see if Boulder chooses to appeal before making a decision as to what their next move will be. If their case eventually moves forward in the 10th Circuit, it could become an important Second Amendment case to watch.

Although the Chambers v Boulder decision is specific to Boulder, it will undoubtedly set a precedent as other municipalities consider pushing similar laws.

Now that this is settled, we assume gun control groups such as Moms Demand Action, Everytown for Gun Safety, and Giffords will start tackling real issues, like skyrocketing violent crime. We won’t hold our breath though.


HR127: It’s Your Money or Your Guns

HR127: It’s Your Money or Your Guns

HR 127 has been called “The Gun Apocalypse” and for good reason. Introduced by Congresswoman Sheila Jackson D-TX, this bill is formally known as the Sabika Sheikh Firearm Licensing and Registration Act. What HR127 ultimately does is wipe out the Second Amendment by making gun ownership unaffordable for all but the most affluent. Which is clearly the intent.

It’s ironic that the Democrats who preach criminal justice reform aren’t hesitating, with the stroke of a pen, to turn millions of law-abiding Americans into felons, punishing them with onerous fines and years of incarceration. Despite this, nothing in HR127 will disarm one violent criminal or reduce the gun homicide rampaging through our cities.

There is much about this bill that makes it unworkable and impractical but for the moment, I’ll focus the discussion on what it will cost your wallet.

Pony up, Mr. Gun Owner

This bill requires that every applicant for a gun license must first pay $800 to the US Attorney General for liability insurance. Never mind that as a gun owner, if you have homeowner’s or renter’s insurance, you already have gun accident insurance under the plan’s liability umbrella coverage. This requirement begs many questions such as, what experience does the AG have in managing insurance? How will claims be processed? Does this insurance protect a gun owner against law suits? Does this insurance cover legal expenses? There remain more questions and I’ll turn back to those later.

You’ll also be required to take 24 hours of training to include live firing training. Maybe you can find such training at $50 per hour so you’re talking $1200, minimum.

You want a gun? You must be crazy!

HR127 requires that every gun owner and member of the household undergo an evaluation by a licensed psychologist. Plus, this psychologist must interview any former spouses as well as at least two other family members or associates. Since the standards for these required evaluations are as yet not available, it’s difficult to determine how much they will cost but a reasonable estimate is $1000 each. Assuming three in your household, that’s at least $3000. Add another $1000 for the interviews—another estimate—and we’re talking $4000.

Also consider that HR127 mentions that these licensed psychologists must be approved by the AG. An Internet search shows about 100K licensed psychologists in the country and not every of them will be approved. Consider the evaluations required of gun owners and members of their households plus interviews with the ex’s and associates, that means less than 100K psychologists will be conducting hundreds of millions of evaluations and interviews. By what deadline? Those psychologists already have full schedules so we’re expecting them to take on such an avalanche of new clients on top of that? This situation will create a seller’s market of insane proportions. With that in mind, who knows what you’ll pay for a shrink’s time.

Speaking of pay…who will pay for these evaluations and interviews?

Not the AG, but you.

The psychological evaluation is offered with the premise it will be an accurate predictor of who should or shouldn’t have a gun. But in truth, those giving such evals, highly trained psychologists and psychiatrists, have a miserable record at protecting public safety. The shooters at Thousand Oaks, the Aurora Theater, and the Parkland high school had all been extensively evaluated for exhibiting dangerous behavior prior to the shootings, and yet nothing was done to prevent the ensuing massacres. And sadly, the increasing rate of suicides in this country shows that mental health professionals don’t have a firm grasp at preventing fatal self-harm.

If there is a hint that the AG’s licensed psychologists may bear any liability for a misdiagnosis, then expect the Catch 22 of HR127 to kick in:

We must keep the mentally disturbed from getting a gun

….and only the mentally disturbed would want a gun.

HR127: By the Number$$

How much will HR127 cost you, the law-abiding gun owner, to keep your property? Factor in fees (also unspecified) for the registration of each gun (don’t forget ammo), the permit application, and the permit itself so a lowball estimate for the first gun is:

Insurance: $800
Training: $1200
Psyche eval: $4000
Fees: ???

Total: $6000+

The AG’s Money Grab

Let’s return to the insurance. Assuming 75 million gun owners in this country, let’s say 25 million won’t pay this extortion and thus give up their guns. That means 50 million will jump through the financial hoops. The simple math of 50 million gun owners times $800 each means $40 billion of your money will slosh into the coffers of the AG. That’s a lot of cash. Substantially more than the entire 2020 budget for the US Department of Justice ($29.9B). What happens to all that money? Does it remain in an insurance portfolio…managed by whom? Or does that money get lost in a slush fund?

Currently, every state in the union is experiencing an alarming surge in gun homicide, mostly because of gang and drug-related shootings aggravated by the pandemic lockdowns. Is anyone naive enough to think that any criminal will subject themselves to the provisions of this bill considering they’re not supposed to have guns to begin with? Tragically, HR127 will do nothing to protect anyone from violent crime or make our streets any safer.

Contact your congressperson today and let them know you oppose this bill!  Click here to find their contact information.


Gun Rights Face Masks Neck Gaiters Coverings For Sale Republican Conservative Don't Tread On Me Betsy Ross Big Laua

They’re Coming For Your AR-15s and AK-47s Even Though Handguns Are Used In Nearly All Gun Crimes

AR’s, AK’s, and assault rifles, oh my!

If you watched the last two Democratic Presidential Debates you heard how every candidate wants to get “weapons of war” off the streets in an effort to tackle what they call our country’s “gun violence” epidemic.  These candidates quickly make it clear when they say weapons of war, they mean AR-15s and AK-47s .  Beto O’Rourke even said he plans to have the police go door to door to confiscate these terrifying guns from those who refuse to cooperate with a mandatory buyback, backing up his “Hell yes, we’re going to take your AR-15” promise.

It’s unclear if these candidates are clueless as to how infrequently rifles such as AR-15s and AK-47s are actually used in gun crime, or if they are using these scary sounding trigger words to garner support from a populace that is being brainwashed to believe these particular firearms are responsible for a grossly inflated number of mass shootings. My guess is it’s a combination of the two.

If you haven’t yet learned how the gun grabbers are inflating these mass shooting numbers, you must read this article.

Our research team dug into the latest FBI report on gun deaths and put together some very telling charts.  This first one shows exactly how insignificant rifles are in the larger picture, and in fact, up until 2015, shotguns have been used in more murders than rifles.

Look closely, there are four lines in this graph…and the rifles line is so insignificant it can barely be seen.  


In addition, our research team took it one step further to look at the alleged “gun violence” epidemic and how it relates to rifles.  This chart shows that even these small numbers have been declining for years, and continue to do so.


Here’s another graph that shows where the firearm murder rate sits compared to all murders via other methods. It’s clear that both have been steadily trending downward for years, and that the firearm murder rate follows an overall murder trend, again emphasizing that the problem is violence, and not the tool one wishes to be violent with.


Bottom line: “Assault Weapons” Bans or mandatory buybacks are nothing but knee-jerk, virtue signaling reactions.

Just say NO.


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)


The Delusion of California Gun Control


California Governor Gavin Newsom is like the rooster in the fable who says, “Look how wonderful I am. When I crow in the morning, that’s the reason the sun rises.” Simply put, he’s too delusional to see the coincidence.

Governor Newsom just signed 15 new gun related bills into law. During the signing he had this to say:

“California has outperformed the rest of the nation, because of our gun safety laws, in reducing the gun murder rate substantially compared to the national reduction. No state does it as well or comprehensively as the state of California, and we still have a long way to go.”

He also added that between 1993 and 2017, the latest available, there was a 62 percent decline in the gun murder rate in California, nearly double the 34 percent nationally.  What he fails to mention is that in 1993 California’s gun murder rate was well above the national average.  In 1993 the gun homicide rate in California was 9.6 per 100,000 people, while nationally it sat at 6.75 per 100,000.  In 2017 California landed at 3.64, just slightly below the national average of 4.6.  Their decline was in line with the national trend, but steeper due to the how high it was initially.

Likewise, Newsom’s claim that California’s drop in gun homicide has anything to do with the state’s ever more restrictive gun laws. Nationally, the 34 percent drop in gun homicide is the consequence of the crack epidemic declining since 1993. As to California’s 64 percent drop in gun homicide, that’s the result of both the state getting a handle on the drug trade, but more significantly, the effect of gentrification from the mountains of cash brought in by Silicon Valley and high-tech. Large swaths of California real estate have been upscaled and where rich people move in, gang-bangers and drug dealers get pushed out. East Palo Alto, one of the most dangerous communities in California, has been swallowed up by Silicon Valley and no big surprise, its violent crime rate has plummeted. Los Angeles has been similarly gentrified. Boyle Heights, another neighborhood notorious for gangs and violent crime, has been recast as a trendy hotspot for the very well-to-do, and its violent crime and gun homicides have gone down.

So if more restrictive gun laws are really the answer, let’s look at two other states that have pursued aggressive gun-control measures like California’s.

From 1993 to 2017, Illinois experienced a 34.9 percent drop in gun homicide–in keeping with the national average. And Chicago is the murder capital of America.

From 1993 to 2017, Maryland experienced a 15.25 percent drop in gun homicide–well short of the national average by half. And Baltimore is the most dangerous city in America.

The big difference between Maryland, Illinois and California? Neither Illinois or Maryland have seen big influxes of cash and gentrification like California.

Let’s look at another telling example about the impact of gentrification: New York City.

In 1911, the city passed the Sullivan Act which required that anyone who possessed a handgun had to get a permit issued by the police and to have all handguns registered.

What was the result? Fast forward to 1981, which was the most violent year in New York City’s history with over 2,000 murders, mostly by handguns. The time was known as the “Death Wish” years when the city was one of the most dangerous in the world.

Now New York City is one of the safest? What happened? The government got serious about stopping organized crime and drug dealers but more importantly, it was New York’s “broken windows” policy. The city cleaned itself up. Research any article about the New York City turn-around and gentrification was key. And you’ll be hard pressed to find any mention that gun control was a factor. Why? Because gun control only affects law-abiding gun owners and they are not the cause of violent crime.

Let’s throw more cold water on the more-gun-control-makes-us-safer myth. Let’s look at Colorado. From 1993 to 2017, the state experienced a 26.2 percent drop in gun homicide. (You have to consider that Colorado was safe to begin with compared to California, Illinois, or Maryland.) In 2014, Colorado enacted two of California’s hallowed gun-control measures, Universal Background Checks and the High-Capacity Magazine Ban. Since then, Colorado’s gun homicide rate has increased by a whopping 47.6 percent. So anyone who claims that gun control has made the state any safer is as delusional as the Gavin Newsom rooster.

What else Gavin Newsom fails to mention is that despite California’s very restrictive gun-control environment, four of the most publicized recent mass-shootings happened on his turf: San Bernardino, Thousand Oaks, the Poway Synagogue, and Gilroy. And three of the most dangerous cities in America are in California: Stockton, San Bernardino, and Oakland. That’s nothing to crow about.

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.

No politician who supports gun control should get armed protection paid for by those they are trying to disarm sticker : Rally For Our Rights

(other designs available)