FROM: Reuters via Y!News

They keep saying it is common sense and the majority of people (including law enforcement) support their gun control. Yet here are 84% of the 64 Colorado Sheriffs in opposition...

By Keith Coffman

DENVER (Reuters) - A group of Colorado county sheriffs, angry about two new state gun control laws passed in the wake of last year's mass shootings in Connecticut and Colorado, filed a federal lawsuit on Friday seeking to block the laws from going into effect.

The two laws, passed by the state's Democratic-controlled legislature with scant Republican support, ban ammunition magazines that hold more than 15 rounds and require background checks for all private gun sales and transfers.

All but 10 of the state's 64 county sheriffs signed on to the suit, filed in U.S. District Court in Denver. In their complaint, the sheriffs allege the new laws, which go into effect July 1, severely restrict citizens' constitutional right to own and bear arms.

The sheriffs, who in Colorado are elected, also complained that they were operating under tight budgets and did not have the money or manpower to enforce the new laws.

"They (the sheriffs) cannot expend these resources to conduct investigations that would be necessary to monitor compliance," the lawsuit said.

The bills were introduced in response to a shooting spree that killed 12 people at a suburban Denver movie theater last July and the slaying of 20 children and six adults at an elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, in December.

Connecticut and New York also have passed stricter gun laws in the wake of the shootings. The National Rifle Association, the powerful U.S. gun lobby, has announced plans to challenge the new gun control laws in all three states.

REASONABLE SAFETY MEASURES

Democratic state Senator Mary Hodge, who sponsored the magazine-limit bill, blasted the sheriffs and said the restrictions were reasonable public-safety measures.

"We can't just sit by and do nothing while first-graders and moviegoers are being mowed down in one fell swoop with weapons equipped with large-capacity magazines," Hodge said in a statement.

Joining the sheriffs in the lawsuit are a number of gun-rights organizations and a disabled gun owners group, who say that magazine limits would restrict their ability to defend themselves in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which bars discrimination against the disabled.

"Disabilities make it difficult to quickly change magazines under the stress of a home invasion," the lawsuit said.

Governor John Hickenlooper, a Democrat who signed the bills into law, is named as the defendant in the lawsuit. His office had no immediate comment.

Colorado Attorney General John Suthers, a Republican, said in a statement that his role "will be to get court rulings on the legality of various aspects of the legislation as expeditiously as possible."

"Colorado citizens, and law-abiding gun owners in particular, deserve such clarification," said Suthers, who did not publicly oppose the two bills when they were debated in the legislature.

Separately, a Colorado pro-gun group, the Basic Freedom Defense Fund, said it was circulating a petition to recall the president of the state Senate, Democrat John Morse, because of his support for gun control measures.

Morse, a former police officer, said he would likely face a recall election later this year as a result.

"If they are successful in removing the Senate president in Colorado, it will have a chilling effect on anyone who takes them on but if they fail they will be exposed for the paper tiger they should be," he said.

(Editing by Cynthia Johnston, Philip Barbara and Bill Trott)

After being humiliated in court SEVERAL times, and being unable to successfully lobby the Legislature it continues its anti-gun crusade by attempting citizen initiatives. This first one is about "universal" un-enforceable background checks but I know that City lawyers have been drafting one to repeal state firearms pre-emption - this is a sore spot for the City since its illegal banning of firearms in parks was (correctly) nullified by the Courts.

We have known this was coming as City officials have been alluding to it since their defeat.

As I have pointed out, previously, the universal background checks legislation is so poorly written that the requirement could have been simply bypassed by a person by saying that they:
1. didn't own the firearm
2. got the firearm prior to the law

Is that the kind of feel good law we want in our State? Completely unenforceable? WASTE OF TIME!

Also, noteworthy, is that WA State Citizen Initiative cannot be modified by the Legislature for *2* years. We cannot allow this to pass. Please spread the word!

LINK to article

TEXT OF ARTICLE:

OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) — After struggling to sway both state and federal lawmakers, proponents of expanding background checks for gun sales are now exploring whether they will have more success by taking the issue directly to voters.

While advocates generally prefer that new gun laws be passed through the legislative process, especially at the national level, they are also concerned about how much sway the National Rifle Association has with lawmakers. Washington Rep. Jamie Pedersen, a Democrat who had sponsored unsuccessful legislation on background checks at the state level, said a winning ballot initiative would make a statement with broad implications.

"It's more powerful if the voters do it — as opposed to our doing it," Pedersen said. "And it would make it easier for the Legislature to do even more."

On Monday, proponents of universal background checks in Washington will announce their plan to launch a statewide initiative campaign that would require the collection of some 300,000 signatures, according to a person involved in the initiative planning who spoke on condition of anonymity so as not to pre-empt the official announcement. The advocates have scheduled a fundraiser in Seattle at the end of next month and hope to have a campaign budget in the millions of dollars.

Ballot measures may be an option elsewhere, too. Hildy Saizow, president of Arizonans for Gun Safety, said an initiative is one of the things the group will be considering as it reconsiders strategies. An organizer in Oregon was focused on the Legislature for now but wouldn't rule out a ballot measure in the future if lawmakers fail to pass a proposed bill there.

While advocates have had success on background checks in places like Connecticut and Colorado, they've been thwarted in some other states and in Congress. The U.S. Senate rejected a plan to expand background checks earlier this month, although lawmakers in the chamber are still working to gather additional votes.

Brian Malte, director of mobilization at the national nonprofit lobbying group Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said passage through Congress is the ideal in order to have a national solution and so that states with strong gun laws aren't undermined by nearby states with weaker standards. He noted that initiative campaigns are costly endeavors that can drain important, limited resources.

Still, Malte said, the ballot measures are an option to consider.

"At some point, certainly decisions need to be made about what the right time is to say we take it to the people," Malte said.

Brian Judy, a lobbyist who represents the NRA in Washington state, did not return calls seeking comment about the new initiative. He has previously said the NRA would likely oppose such an effort, arguing that the recently proposed laws on background checks would largely impact law-abiding citizens instead of the intended targets such as criminals and the mentally ill.

Gun measures have had mixed results at the ballot. More than 70 percent of Washington state voters rejected a 1997 initiative campaign that would have required handgun owners to pass a safety course. After the Columbine High School massacre in 1999, voters in Colorado and Oregon approved ballot measures the next year to require background checks for buying weapons at gun shows.

Following another massacre in Colorado earlier this year, state lawmakers approved a bill to expand background checks to private transactions and online purchases. A similar expansion plan in Oregon is stalled in the state Senate.

Some states don't see initiatives as a viable option right now. In Missouri, state Rep. Stacey Newman has been pushing for background checks with little success. While she spoke positively about the idea of a ballot initiative, she said there's no serious consideration of it because of the cost and coordination required just to get it on the ballot. Instead, the supporters of background checks in the state are simply working to prevent NRA-supported legislation from passing the state's General Assembly.

"We're continually on defense," she said.

Gun buyers currently must undergo a background check when they purchase a weapon from a federally licensed firearms dealer but can avoid checks through private purchases or at some gun shows.

Washington state advocates believe polls show the public is sufficiently on the side of expanding background checks further. An independent Elway Poll conducted two months ago found that 79 percent of registered voters in Washington state supported background checks on all gun sales, including private transactions.

That wasn't enough to shepherd the bill through the Legislature. Even in the state House, which is controlled by Democrats, supporters fell short after an NRA campaign put pressure on some lawmakers. Pedersen had offered concessions through the process, including the option of sending the measure out for a public vote and exemptions for people who already have concealed pistol licenses or law enforcement credentials.

Pedersen said he was working with the initiative organizers on language for the proposal, and he said the Legislature would first have another chance to adopt the measure early next year. If it fails among lawmakers again, the proposal would then automatically go to the ballot, where Pedersen said he welcomed a campaign competing against groups like the NRA.

"I'm not afraid of it at all," Pedersen said. "The public is really with us. It's the right policy. I think it can be useful for further progress."