Opposition to HB24-1292 "Prohibit Certain Weapons Used In Mass Shootings"

Well, here we are again, another attempt to use the blood of innocent people to disarm innocent people. The sponsors of HB24-1292 should be utterly ashamed of themselves, not only are they wasting taxpayer dollars, because they know this is unconstitutional on its face, but they have also used wording to lie to Coloradans.

?

This year Colorado tried their best to remove a Presidential Candidate from the state ballot with outrageous claims of his involvement with the events that surrounded January 6th of 2021, only to get annihilated by all 9 justices in the highest court of this union! This is just the most extreme example of exactly how out of touch they are with the constitution and what states can and cannot do pertaining to American rights within and outside of the Colorado borders. They will stop at nothing to destroy American values that have held this union together for almost two- and one-half centuries.

?

Last year, they named a similar bill “Prohibit Assault Weapons in Colorado '' this year the name changed to “Prohibit Certain Weapons Used in Mass Shootings” Oh gee, I wonder why the change? I know a little something about psychological warfare, and this name change is no different - the manipulation of people to exercise control over them. The name change in itself is an attempt to persuade those who may be on the fence about approving, voting for, or sponsoring such an unconstitutional provision.

?

In addition to the palpable name change, the bill is rattled with lies from start to finish. One of the great lies is in the name change itself. For starters, nowhere in the document is the term “mass shooting” defined and the definition of “assault weapons,” as this bill defines, is essentially all semi-automatic pistols, rifles, and shotguns if they have ONE of the listed common features that DO NOT make the firearm any more or less lethal. Moreover, these common features on these common firearms do not make these common firearms less common either, but I am sure the sponsors could care less about any of the Supreme Court decisions that affirm the Second Amendment.

?

The biggest lie in the title of the bill is the notion that the bill only prohibits “certain” weapons used in mass shootings. Since when are .50 caliber rifles used in mass shootings? I also notice the bill does not differentiate between the various actions pertaining to rifles in the .50 caliber category. Meaning, all .50 caliber rifles would be banned as “Assault Weapons'' regardless if the rifle is single shot, pump action, bolt action, or semi-auto. This shows the hand of the anti-gunners who want all firearms banned regardless of the Constitution and regardless if they were used in mass shootings, and is similar to their attempt to remove Donald J. Trump from the Colorado ballot.

?

Furthermore, the text of the bills lies so great it is almost as if the sponsors of the bill laugh in the face of their own base labeling them stupid in the most surreptitious method, knowing full well their base either does not care or will not fact check the claims the bill makes. The sponsors as well as most of their base is absolutely ignorant to firearms in general, blinded by emotion due to circumstance as they have mentioned in the bill itself, naming the mass shootings that have occurred in several places within Colorado. All adults should know, crafting a decision or decisions with emotion is not wise, nor will those decisions produce the desired effect.

One such lie is listed on page 2 which states, “MASS SHOOTINGS ARE A SIGNIFICANT COMPONENT OF THE DISTINCTLY AMERICAN EPIDEMIC OF GUN VIOLENCE”

Might I remind the sponsors of the bill, gun violence or mass shootings are not distinctly American! Our neighbor to the south has many more deaths per capita due to violence with firearms. If any legislator ignores this fact, please travel to Juarez, just south of the border, walk around at night without any protection, and ask many questions of the citizens there. Many other countries have far greater firearms related deaths than the United States. Please stop lying!

Another lie is located in paragraph (1)(g) that says “Assault weapons … are disproportionately used in public mass shootings …” this statement is not immediately recognized as a lie until you realize the bill literally defines ALL semi-auto firearms if they have one common feature as “assault weapons.” If the definition is correct, the statement would be true, but to claim something so misleading is yet another form of manipulation. Semi-auto firearms are the choice for military, police, and civilians for defense just as they are for bad actors that want to harm others. One would not restrict the privilege to drive just because drunk drivers cause accidents, so any proposal of stripping RIGHTS because of bad actors should fall flat.

Speaking of police, if these “assault weapons” are so horrible and “have no place in civilized society,” para. (1)(c), why are there special provisions for the police to keep so-called “assault weapons?” Additionally, why are there provisions to allow, “An entity that operates an armored vehicle business and an authorized employee of the entity while in the course and scope of employment” to keep so called “assault weapons.”?

Who are these entities??

Why do they operate armored vehicles??

What is their scope of employment?

If these “entities” are security agencies that collect monies from banks, ATMs, or other places with high value tangible items. The sponsors of this bill display a belief that tangible items are more valuable than the citizens’ rights to keep and bear arms and the right to defend one-self from harm. However, if these “entities” are not security agencies, then we should all be concerned and we should all ask these questions directly. The sponsors of this bill obviously do not want the public to know who these “entities” are and that is very peculiar.

Moreover, the bill asserts in paragraph (2)(a), “ASSAULT WEAPONS ARE NOT SUITABLE FOR SELF DEFENSE AND ARE NOT WELL-SUITED FOR HUNTING, SPORTING, OR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN MASS KILLING”

There is so much in this one little sentence that requires questioning. For the same question above, if this statement is true, then why are there provisions to allow police and other “entities” to keep and use so-called “assault weapons?” This statement is obviously not true in any regard, semi-auto rifles with or without a detachable magazine are used hunting every season; in addition to national and worldwide competitions semi-auto pistols, with or without a threaded barrel, are used in the vast majority of self-defense cases were firearms are used; in addition to self-defense home invasion plans, semi-auto shotguns are used for game bird hunting and skeet/trap competitions; AR15s, Pistol Caliber Carbines, and AK47s are used in competitions, hunting, plinking, and defense against tyranny. (There will be some eye rolls on the “defense against tyranny” claim) The accusation that these weapons have no other purpose than mass killing is dangerous, not factual, and a bold-faced lie. In fact, not a single one of my firearms that fit the bill's definition has killed anyone. Speaking of my firearms, if in fact these so-called “assault weapons” are so very dangerous, then why the grandfather clause? We all know why; we know that the anti-gunners want to chip away at the Second Amendment little by little until they have enough support for confiscation.

In Paragraph 2.c. this bill asserts that "AFTER THE FEDERAL ASSAULT WEAPON BAN EXPIRED IN 2004, GUN MASSACRES SKYROCKETED BY APPROXIMATELY ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY-THREE PERCENT." Notice how this bill specifically targets "gun massacres" and ignores the fact that violence with firearms has significantly decreased nationwide.

?

The published April 2022 study by Bureau of Justice Statistics concluded, "The rate of firearm homicide per 100,000 persons age 12 or older declined 41% across the 26-year period of 1993 to 2018" (8.4/100k to 5.0/100k) Additionally, according to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, from 2019 to 2022 the average per capita homicide rate with a firearm is 5.57/100k which shows a steady normalized average in homicides by firearm.

?

This bill also states, "IN THE TEN YEARS THAT ASSAULT WEAPONS WERE LIMITED BY A FEDERAL BAN, GUN MASSACRES DROPPED DRASTICALLY, BY AT LEAST THIRTY-SEVEN PERCENT." which is an outright lie of magnificent proportions. Mass shootings actually increased compared to the 10-year period prior to 1994.

?

The Violence Project clearly explains pre-, during, and post- 1994 Assault Weapons Ban. Interestingly enough the gun grabbers tout on their 94’ Assault Weapons Ban as something that would prevent mass shootings with "assault weapons" in the future, however in the decade pre-94 (the first decade) there were 25 cases of mass shootings six of those an "assault rifle" was used which is 24% of the total. During the banned period from 1994-2004 (the second decade) there were 33 mass shootings and the use of an "assault rifle" slightly decreased to 21% of the total. However, in the following decade (the third decade) the use of "assault rifles" in mass shootings decreased to 17% of the total (8 uses out of 46 mass shootings).?

?

Of note, the rate of increase of mass shootings between 1984-2022 was unchanged by the 94’ Assault Weapons Ban. On average there was about a 25% steady increase between the decades.

?

There has been a significant increase in use of “Assault Rifles” from 2014 to present, but why? It is most definitely not because the 94’ Assault Weapons Ban expired. Even if you wanted to hang your hat on the effectiveness of the 94’ Assault Weapons Ban, you could only assert an extremely minimal effectiveness (3%) between the first and second decades. Even if you add the third decade to the 94’ AWB effectiveness, it would only be about 6% effective, which clearly demonstrates the gun is not the problem and never was.

?

In summary, the rate of increase has not changed from decade to decade, the percentage of “Assault Rifle” use has only increased in the last decade, and the number of personnel killed during a mass shooting has increased steadily from 1984 regardless of the 94’ AWB, but homicides by firearm have plateaued at their lowest average since 1993 with a decline of 41% anyone can see why anti-gunners only want to use mass shootings for their gun grab agenda.

?

In the last decade we have seen our government sell out Americans and the United States.

?

• We have deployed fathers and husbands to significant wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, causing a disproportionate amount of stress on fathers and husbands, who could not father their children and who could not be a husband to their wives. Only to pull out of Afghanistan so abruptly that it significantly impacted thousands of those Service Members and Veterans who thought we (Americans) were in the fight to free the Afghans from tyranny.?
• We were lied to about the pandemic while being forced to take vaccines and wear muzzle devices.
• Children are glued to their phones watching TikTok, Instagram, SnapChat, and other non-productive social programming instead of learning math and science.
• Taxes have increased both on a state and federal level along with the inflation of goods and services.
• Our borders are not secure and we welcome unvetted personnel with open arms knowing full well some have arrived to do Americans harm.?
• The government continues to get us involved with other wars in Ukraine and Israel by spending money we do not have, failing to help American families, especially those who are homeless.?
• We are told that masculinity is toxic and all whites are racist, but people of color cannot be racist.
• We are told our children can cut their genitals off and we should be supportive of their delusions regardless of biblical, moral, or ethical convictions.?
• We are told January 6th was an "insurrection" but the widespread violence during the preceding election year was "mostly peaceful".
• We were told that one of the primary presidential candidates could be barred from running because of his involvement in the “insurrection”?
• Law Enforcement Officers cannot do their jobs without fear of being prosecuted.?
• We are forced by law to get health insurance (Obama Care) which is an added cost of living.

?

All of these are more than likely contributions to the shootings that have occurred over the last decade.

?

To finish this opposition article, several decisions from the Supreme Court have ruled in favor of the Second Amendment since its ratification. Namely, the following references has pulled from Justia.com

?

Arguably the most important Supreme Court decision is Caetano v. Massachusetts (2016) considering it was unanimously decided by all nine justices, just like the Trump ballot issue in 2024. All of these so-called “assault weapons” are bearable arms and we the people shall keep them.

?

?U.S. v. Cruikshank (1876)?

Author: Morrison R. Waite

The Second Amendment declares that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, but this means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government.

Presser v. Illinois (1886)?

Author: William Burnham Woods

In view of the fact that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force of the national government, as well as in view of its general powers, the states cannot prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining public security.

District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)?

Author: Antonin Scalia

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010)?

Author: Samuel A. Alito, Jr.

The Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense. (In other words, the right is protected from state as well as federal interference.)

?

Caetano v. Massachusetts (2016)?

Author: Per Curiam

The Second Amendment extends to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding, and this Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the states.

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen (2022)?

Author: Clarence Thomas

When the Second Amendment's plain text covers an individual's conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. To justify a firearm regulation, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation.

?

?

David Williams

Triple A Coach LLC

Colorado Springs, CO