Posted on 04/12/2002 9:10:33 AM PDT by fivetoes
You have before you two bills concerning concealed carry of handguns. I am sure you are very aware of them. Everyone seems to be jumping on this bandwagon to get as much political capital as possible.
Being a present CCW permit holder, I have read both bills with great interest. Although many of you support HB1410, I would urge to to throw your support behind HB 1242.
Here are the URLs for the bills in question:
HB 1242
HB 1410
HB1410 is supported by the NRA, the Colorado Firearms Coalition, the Colorado State Shooting Association, and many Sheriffs.
I and many other members of the NRA do not support this bill. Do you represent the NRA, the CFC and the CSSA or your constituents? It would appear that you are being persuaded by a 'special interest', namely the NRA, who would appear to have a financial stake in the passage of this bill since they make money certifying instructors.
From HB1410 18-12-202. Definitions.
23 (b) USES INSTRUCTORS OR CURRICULUM CERTIFIED BY THE
24 NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OR BY THE PEACE OFFICERS
25 STANDARDS AND TRAINING BOARD;
I get very suspicious when Democrat Senate Majority Leader Stan Matsanka supports any kind of firearm bill. I remember too well his last minute mailing before his first election. His opponent was a supporter of the right of the people to be armed. It was a flyer that showed a burgler with a gun breaking into a home. It was designed to scare us into thinking we somehow would be safer if guns were gone. My reaction was, and still is that the home owner should have been armed to be able to shoot back.
Recently I received a copy of a press release from a member of the legislature exposing his support for HB1410. Here is an excerpt.
A women from Ft. Collins or Loveland may carry a concealed weapon while in Denver, but a woman living in Denver doesn't have the opportunity to obtain a permit in Denver. Amy Rathburn is a firearms instructor in Denver. She testified in committee that even she cannot get a permit in Denver. It is time to end this unfairness, and give all law-abiding citizens of Colorado the right to defend themselves.
My response is that in a representative form of government, officials are elected to represent the views of the people who elected them. If Ms. Rathburn cannot get a permit in Denver then that is her problem. There is already a good concealed carry law on the books. The best thing that you could do is support changing the word "MAY' to "SHALL' in the already present law. The folks in Denver area need to elect a sheriff and others who better represent them.
It has come to my attention that many of you now say you support both bills. If this is true, why the change in heart? Why waffle with your integrity? It sure looks like you are trying to please everyone instead of standing on principle. Just what are you going to do if both bills pass? I would submit that the looks on your faces will be priceless.
You took an oath of office to support the constitution of the United States. I have included the section in the Colorado Constitution below in case you have forgotten. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land. It is not a buffet where you can choose which laws you will support.
The Declaration of Independence clearly states where our rights come from. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". Why then should we have to ask permission from the state to do that which is granted by our Creator?
HB1410 will further erode my rights and those other present permit holders. We will no longer be able to carry in schools. The advantage goes to the criminals. Why would you support a bill that gives the bad guys an advantage. Do you think they care about gun laws? They are criminals, they break laws!
I want to be able to carry my weapon any place that a law enforcement officer can carry. This bill creates two classes of people; those whose lives are considered valuable enough to be able to defend themselves anywhere, such as law enforcement and those that whose lives are expendable.
Law enforcement officers do not have a constitutional duty to defend an individual. There was a double homicide the other night in a field at I-25 and Highway 56. One man was shot seven times and the woman he was with called 911 when the assailant left. He reloaded and returned. He shot her three, possibly four times while she was talking on the phone to the 911 dispatcher. According to the Rocky Mountain News, two deputies were 10 to 14 feet away when she was gunned down in cold blood. She may have been able to save her own life had she been armed.
This about more than firearms. It is about essential liberty. It is about the principles of individual freedom. It is about the principle of less government intrusion. It is about not having to ask the government for permission to excerise a God given right. Gun control legislation is nothing more than People Control.
What I would really like you to do is change the word 'MAY' to 'SHALL' in the present law on the books, but I suppose the debate over one word would be more than you could bear.
HB 1242 is a much better bill at reestablishing the rights of citizens to be able to defend themselves. This bill is short and written in simple language that is easy to understand. We already have restrictive national legislation to weed out the good guys and gals from the bad when purchasing a firearm. Why do you insist on making the good law-abiding folks jump through more hoops?
I urge you to support HB 1242 over HB 1410.
In conclusion I would add that I would rather be on the losing side of a principled argument than the expedient illusion of winning by compromise. Those that would take away our freedoms offer no concessions for compromise. When we compromise our God given rights and freedoms we lose.
I have included some definitions of certain words, lest their meanings are somehow diminished in the debate of ideas.
Sincerely,
Tom Buchanan
Loveland, Colorado
====================
The American Heritage Dictionary
integrity
1. Steadfast adherence to a strict moral or ethical code.
2. The state of being unimpaired; soundness.
3. The quality or condition of being whole or undivided; completeness.
principle
1. A basic truth, law, or assumption: the principles of democracy.
2a. A rule or standard, especially of good behavior: a man of principle.
b. The collectivity of moral or ethical standards or judgments:
a decision based on principle rather than expediency.
3. A fixed or predetermined policy or mode of action.
4. A basic or essential quality or element determining intrinsic
nature or characteristic behavior: the principle of self-preservation.
compromise
1a. A settlement of differences in which each side makes concessions.
oath
1a. A solemn, formal declaration or promise to fulfill a pledge,
often calling on God, a god, or a sacred object as witness.
b. The words or formula of such a declaration or promise.
honor
1. High respect, as that shown for special merit; esteem
2a. Good name; reputation
Colorado State Constitution
ARTICLE V
Legislative Department
Section 2. Election of members - oath - vacancies.
(2) Each member of the general assembly, before he enters upon his official duties, shall take an oath or affirmation to support the constitution of the United States and of the state of Colorado and to faithfully perform the duties of his office according to the best of his ability. This oath or affirmation shall be administered in the chamber of the house to which the member has been elected.
However, I strongly condemn Tom Buchanan's attacks on the NRA in the article above. Good job Buchanan of doing the anti-gun lobby's work for them. Good job making it more difficult for us to get 'shall issue' in Colorado.
You're certainly welcome to *strongly condemn* Tom Buchanan, but at least he's consistant in his opinion, and isn't making public statements about how he's afraid of some weapons in the hands of Colorado shooters and their owners- as NRA frontman Heston has been.
When the NRA gets less interested in selling insurance and raising money from the duck hunters while selling out other gun owners they might get my support, particularly if they'd do as much to advance a *Shall issue* approach to the Colorado Concealed Carry situation as the CSSA has.
Guns Make NRA President "Nervous"
by Angel Shamaya
April 6, 2002
KeepAndBearArms.com ¡Ö
NRA President Charleton Heston has once again done a disservice to defenders of the Real Second Amendment, this time by telling a large drive-time radio audience in Los Angeles that AK-47's and guns like them make him "nervous."
Mr. Heston was interviewed by Los Angeles talkshow host Larry Elder (KABC-AM 790, April 2, 2002 show, 5pm Hour). During the show, Mr. Elder took callers, and one of the callers asked Mr. Heston about his anti-AK47 statements made on California radio back in 1997. We received reports of the statements Mr. Heston made and are waiting for a transcript, and hopefully an audio recording, to archive a record of this latest interview, verbatim.
Following are reports from a listener who heard this report and who also happens to be affiliated with the local NRA Members Council ¡Ö and from the talkshow host himself, Larry Elder.
NRA Member's Report:
"Mr. Heston stated that such firearms made him nervous, but he was not for barring ownership of them. He essentially said that firearms like the AK-47 scared him."
Larry Elder's Confirmation, sent to me personally:
"He said something to the effect that this kind of firearm makes him nervous when owned by inexperienced people, and that they possess more firepower than he feels necessary for hunting and self-defense. BUT, he would not outlaw them."
If Charleton Heston isn't for outlawing "assault weapons," why didn't he lift a finger in his own home state when they were being banned?
Pay attention to the fact that the President of the National Rifle Association holds that the Second Amendment is about hunting and self defense.
Such talk is not foreign to Mr. Heston's lips. In 1997, he said "private possession of AK-47's is entirely inappropriate." Read that transcript below, along with what passed for a retraction.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HESTON's Anti-AK47 COMMENTS FROM 1997 RADIO INTERVIEW
The following transcript is verbatim, without alteration, and includes misspellings.
VMS TRANSCRIPT
Video Monitoring Services of America, L.P.
720 Harrison Street, Suite 320
San Francisco, CA 94107
(415)543-3361
(415)543-6148
DATE May 6, 1997
TIME 8:00 - 9:00 AM (PT)
STATION KGO-AM (ABC)
LOCATION San Francisco
PROGRAM Morning Drive Time
### BEGIN TRANSCRIPT ###
Ted Wygant, anchor: Well this is very appropriate to talk with Moses as we talk about it, at least. Now let's say good morning to the man who played it so well, Charleton Heston. Good morning, sir!
Charleton Heston (Actor/NRA Board Member): And good morning to you, Mister Wygant.
Wygant: Well, we're delighted to have you with us, and we appreciate your time because you have taken on a task that I think a lot of folks might have backed away with because a lot of concern about the National Rifle Association.
Heston: Our country belongs to Hercules, doesn't it?
Wygant: Yeah, right. What made you do it? How come you want to get in the middle of this?
Heston: Well, I've, of course, been- found myself in the arena, if you will, on a number of public sector causes. I suppose starting back when I started demonstrating for civil rights back in 1961. Long before it got fashionable in Hollywood. And then the Screen Actors Guild, and the National Endowment For The Arts, and the Separate Theater Group, and so on- and then the Presidential Task force, and the Arts and Humanities. And I've been a member of- of the National Rifle Association for, oh, twenty years or more. When I was a kid in Michigan, in the Depression, I lived in a little hamlet in Northern Michigan with about, oh, a hundred houses which contained easily two hundred and fifty, three hundred fire arms of various kinds. Mostly being used for hunting, of course- food for the table. But I was asked, as is true with all of the jobs I've done. Somebody asked me.
Wygant: Well, you've got quite a task. And- and you've been named first vice president. You- you're a member of the board at-at one point, and gee, you just zipped right up.
Heston: I just was elected to the board on Saturday.
Wygant: Yeah.
Heston: It's the primary defender of the second amendment of the Bill Of Rights, which is, of course, a core document. The Bill Of Rights is right at the basis of the American idea, those wise old dead white guys that made up the country knew what they were about. And you- it is a mainstream issue. Most Americans, in fact, support the second amendment's right to bear and carry arms, and there are, as you suggest, a few extremists, and some of them are- are on the board. And we have, however, we- they elected- or re-elected in the case of Wayne LaPierre, and elected in my case and Cain Robinson's case- police chief Cain Robinson is now second vice president. We re-elected Marion Hammer as president.
Wygant: Mister Heston, could I ask you to stand by here for just a moment? We have to get to traffic, but I- I do want to continue talking with you. Could you hang in for a minute?
Heston: Yeah.
Wygant: Okay, good. Thanks.
****************
Wygant: Okay, right now let's get back to Charleton Heston talking to us from his home in Southern California. Let me ask you, you mentioned that there are some right wing folks- far right wing, still around the NRA. Are you going to try to get them off the board and out of the picture?
Heston: That- that's certainly the intention, and I think it's highly doable. Wayne LaPierre is- is a superb leader, Marion Hammer's a strong president. And I think Cain Robinson and I can provide some useful support there.
Wygant: Now the image of- of the NRA has been an organization that supports the right of people to buy any legal firearms, and, of course, you go to any- any gun store- gun shop and you see things there that are big, and brutal, and deadly, and far more than you need for- for hunting or home protection. Do you stand by- I mean, the image is...
Heston: AK-47's are inappropriate for private ownership, of course.
Wygant: Yeah, but the image is that they're- the fire power of these weapons is far more than a hunter or a homeowner would need. Why is it necessary to have those guns available anyway?
Heston:
I just got through telling you. The possession- private possession of AK-47's is entirely inappropriate.
Wygant: Right, but AK-47's one thing, but I've been in a gun shop- I've been in gun shops, and there's fire power there that doest's seem necessary and that people worry about being out there in- in the hands of, you know, potential criminals.
Heston: I'm not certain what you're point is- that there are guns available in gun stores?
Wygant: No, guns that go beyond what a hunter would need. In other words, why does the NRA support guns that have overkill? Let's put it that way. Shouldn't there be some sort of limit?
Heston: Well, for any certain time, AK-47's are entirely inappropriate for private ownership, and the- the problem, of course, is not guns held by private citizens, but guns held by criminals. And where we have failed, where the government has failed is with entirely cosmetic actions like the Brady Bill, which is meaningless. I'm not even- don't even think it should be repealed because it doesn't do anything. and it's been in- on the books for more than two years. In the course of that time, I think it is, nineteen people have been arrested, and two have been imprisoned felons with felony records for trying to purchase a firearm.
Wygant: Well, we've- we gotta- I really appreciate talking with us. It'll be interesting to see- interesting to see how you handle the public image of the National Rifle Association and those in the far right in the group. And if you don't mind, we'd like to talk to you again.
Heston: I hope we can do that.
Wygant: Alright, thanks very much.
Heston: Mister Wygant.
Wygant: Thank you. Charleton Heston from his home in Southern California, and the KGO Radio News time is 8:23.
### END TRANSCRIPT ###
When NRA members expressed upset over Mr. Heston's anti-second-amendment comments, NRA released a letter Mr. Heston wrote to a Colonel Brown. In case someone attempts to say that Mr. Heston's alleged "clarification" was genuine or even accurate, let's take a look at exactly what he said:
May 12, 1997
Dear Colonel Brown,
Thank you for asking me for a clarification of my comments in an interview on KGO radio. When I spoke of AK-47 firearms on May 6th, I was talking about the Soviet military rifle -- a fully-automatic, not a semiautomatic, firearm -- and what I thought was common knowledge. Namely, that federal law has strictly regulated the private ownership of such fully automatic firearms for 63 years.
I didn't favor a cap put on this procedure in 1986 by the United States Congress because no legally owned fully-automatic firearm has ever been used in a crime.
Regrettably, the distinction between classes of firearms is still not understood thanks to the distortions spread by the media and those who'd destroy the Second Amendment.
That's why I lobbied against the Clinton gun ban as a private citizen in 1994, and that is why I'll be honored to continue defending the Second Amendment as First Vice President of the National Rifle Association.
Sincerely,
(Signed)
Charleton Heston
This information is provided as a service of the National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action, Fairfax, VA.
Compare Mr. Heston's statements, made six (6) days apart, and decide for yourself. Here are the key quotes to ponder:
May 6, 1997: "AK-47's are inappropriate for private ownership, of course. ... The possession- private possession of AK-47's is entirely inappropriate. ... AK-47's are entirely inappropriate for private ownership."
May 12, 1997: "I was talking about the Soviet military rifle..."
Mr. Heston's "clarification" told us that a military rifle, to him, was entirely inappropriate. Now they are just scary.
Does it make sense to have the President of the largest "defender of the Second Amendment" in America talking about being afraid of firearms?
Your "clarification" is not any better, Mr. Heston. Why shouldn't the law abiding public have the unfettered right to own fully automatic rifles?
The 2nd amendment is not about duck hunting nor fending off burglars.
I understand and support the desire to have HR 1292 but I prefer the other to nothing. A bill that can pass and be signed will have to have some form of training requirement.
But to have vile garbage about the NRA supposedly supporting a bill because of the benefit to NRA instructors is playing into the hands of the opponents. Its time for growing up people.
Wow, that's sure relevant.
Not.
Come on people, grow up here. Spare us the lame NRA bashing and focus on getting a 'shall issue' bill passed.
Further more have you actually read the bills or are you basing your beliefs on sound bites?
I have read and studied the bills. As a CCW permit holder, I and the thousands of other permit holders lose if 1410 passes. We will have to once more ask the government if we can practice a God given right. We have already spent money on applications and will be forced to spend even more if this passes. For what? The all ready know more about me than they need to.
I have nothing against the NRA if they would stick to what they started out as. Training and firearm safety. I am sick and tired of any and everyone bartering with our rights as though they were a comodity like pork bellies.
Just for the record, my wife and I are members of the NRA. Does being a member mean that I can no longer think for myself? This smacks of the unions taking dues and supporting political positions whether or not you want them to voice their opinion using your money.
The Colorado legislature is not going to adopt a bill that merely changes the present law to 'shall-issue'. If you wish to "think for yourself", then consider that. And you'd do us all a lot of good by saving the NRA bashing for when we are working on NRA elections and focus on pushing for a 'shall issue' bill.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.