The Colorado Bureau of investigation “advises local law enforcement to ignore and violate new Colorado gun laws,” Larimer County Sheriff Justin Smith disclosed yesterday on a Facebook post. Furthermore, both law enforcement and gun owners who have had guns with standard capacity magazines stolen will be committing criminal acts if the gun is recovered and returned, Smith wrote in another post this morning.
“[Governor John] Hickenlooper's new laws require that every time a gun is transferred for more than 72 hours, a state background check must be conducted by an FFL dealer,” Smith advised in yesterday’s post. “When my staff inquired how law enforcement agencies were supposed to comply with that provision as they return firearms to lawful owners, the CBI representative told them law enforcement agencies were not supposed to use the system mandated by Colorado's new laws, but instead they were to conduct their own, limited (non-compliant) background check of the recipient.
“This is in direct conflict with Governor Hickenlooper's own law,” Smith asserted.
More of the unintended(probably) consequences of this Bloomberg-written piece of crap.
Oh yeah, we can trust the BATFEIEIO with this.
And, just in time to save Democrats from the 2014 elections,
I suppose my question, a little bit later, would be "From where does he
derive the right to unilaterally change his misbegotten law without
Congressional action? Just because his law is so horribly screwed up he
thinks he has the unilateral power to alter it?"
The answer would be 'From nowhere; he does not have that authority. But unless Congress nails him on this, he'll get away with it.
Again.
Yes, it's the Daily Kos. Yes, the article is Why liberals should love the Second Amendment.
And it's a pretty good article.
The comments, however, quickly become a cesspool of 'conservatives and white militia are after the blacks', which is unfortunate(I guess all the Democrats who founded the Klan and did everything possible to crap on blacks are all counted as 'conservatives', thus absolving the D party of any responsibility for anything).
3 comments:
Is "transfer" defined in the law?
I'm pretty sure the Feds, for instance, don't consider "returning stolen property" to even be a transfer, rather than simply returning the property to its existing rightful owner...
(In other words, it's only a transfer if it's changing owners; the theft didn't change ownership, just possession, so returning it to its actual owner is not itself a "transfer" back to the owner.
At least that's my understanding of the Federal system around when it's a "transfer" in this context.
If the Colorado law didn't specifically define "transfer" - or sue an existing definition - in such a way as to specifically include theft as a "transfer", this might be a non-issue.)
It may be; but if the sheriff's don't know if it is or not, I'd hate to trust to it.
Hickenlooper. Hm. Kind of sounds like a character from Keith Laumer's 'Retief' stories.
Post a Comment