Thread: State-by-state gun control developments

A law outlawing gun laws? Only in Arizona

They believe in the Second Amendment but apparently not the First.
They respect federal law when it comes to marijuana but not so much when it comes to guns.

I would suggest that you send an email to your legislators pointing out that the whole thing is, shall we say, très bizarre. But then they may be tempted to print it out…which might be illegal, under another bill floating around the state Capitol.

(HB 2283 imposes limits on printing government documents that contain foreign language.)

It’s week three of the first regular session of Arizona’s 51^st Legislature and our leaders are up to their eyeballs in important state business…

Well no, there’s no bill to close campaign-finance loopholes that leave voters in the dark and no, I haven’t seen any bills aimed at making it more difficult for those who suffer from serious mental illness to get guns. At least, none that have a chance of getting heard (read: Republican bills). But there’s a push on to repeal the state’s medical marijuana law, to comply with federal drug laws.

Meanwhile, we have a pair of proposals that would make it illegal – a felony, even, in some circumstances – to enforce federal gun laws.

Rep. Steve Smith’s HB 2291 and Sen. Kelli Ward’s SB 1112 would bar federally licensed firearms dealers from undertaking such nefarious activities as conducting criminal background checks on people who buy AR-15s and such.

Under the Smith/Ward plan, government employees, judges and even jurors would be barred from enforcing federal gun laws and if any federal officials try to do so in the sovereign state of Arizona, they’d be guilty of a felony.

The bill is endorsed by a powerhouse lineup that includes Judy Burges, Carl Seel and Kelly Townsend. It’s scheduled for a hearing before the Senate Public Safety Committee at 2 p.m. Wednesday. Seriously, it is.

Ward is the Lake Havasu City Republican who replaced Ron Gould. I had hopes that she, a doctor, might resist the gravitational pull of kookville.

Smith, it appears, long ago succumbed. This Maricopa Republican/talent agency director is perhaps best known for his ongoing attempts to raise private funds to build a border fence and public funds to reimburse Russell Pearce for his non-existent recall expenses. And oh yeah, his failed attempt late last year to oust Andy Tobin as House speaker.

Smith didn’t return a call to explain how his gun bill squares with the U.S. Constitution. Or how his bill requiring students to recite the Pledge of Allegiance squares with the U.S. Constitution.

Flagstaff Rep. Bob Thorpe has a similar bill (HB 2467) to require high school students to take a loyalty oath before graduation. But he, at least, had the good sense to make the oath optional after talking to fellow legislators.

“I’m a brand new legislator,” he told me. “I never held office before so it’s kind of a learning process for me.”

Smith, meanwhile, is in his third year.

His say-the-pledge-or else bill (HB 2284) would be tacked onto a Russell Pearce law passed in 2007, wherein our leaders dictated that every school must display an American flag in every classroom and that said flags must be at least 2×3 feet and made in the USA. (The Legislature, of course, provided no money to buy all those flags.)

Now comes Smith’s attempt to further boost patriotism, by requiring children to pledge their allegiance every day. It appears to be going nowhere, as Tobin hasn’t assigned it to any committees.

Perhaps that’s payback. Or perhaps the speaker simply appreciates the irony here. True patriotism – not to mention a real appreciation for what it means to be an American — requires that Smith’s bill be dispatched.

So does the Constitution.

The U.S. Supreme Court in 1943 held that it is unconstitutional to compel schoolchildren to say the pledge and salute the flag. The First Amendment, the justices said, includes the right not to speak.

“If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein,” the justices said.

Seventy years years later, if there is any fixed star in our local constellation of leading lights, it’s that kooks will always be among us.

But their bills should be shot off to infinity and beyond.
Way beyond.

Reach Roberts at laurie.roberts@arizonarepublic.com or 602-444-8635.

http://www.azcentral.com/insiders/laurieroberts/2013/01/29/wacky-gun-bill-to-be-heard-wednesday/

RELATED

http://www.alipac.us/f9/california-u...people-271597/

States mull whether arming teachers can prevent another school massacre

By John Roberts
Published January 30, 2013
FoxNews.com


In the wake of the Newtown, Conn., school massacre, state legislatures across the nation are debating how best to protect children against the horror that took place at Sandy Hook elementary school. In Tennessee, Sen. Frank Niceley is introducing a bill Wednesday that would require an armed presence in every public school – either a “school resource officer,” or, if local schools can’t afford an SRO, a teacher or staff member who has gone through the same training.

“We don’t want that (Newtown) to happen here,” Niceley told Fox News. “Those teachers up there laid down their lives to save those children. We don’t want our teachers here to have to do that.”

“We don’t want that (Newtown) to happen here.”

- Tennessee Sen. Frank Niceley

The idea of an educator carrying a weapon is a controversial one. Tennessee state Rep. Darren Jernigan says it goes against the very essence of what a teacher is.

“They have a mentality of nurturing students, a mentality of educating students, but not necessarily of defending them with arms,” Jernigan told Fox News. “If they wanted to go into law enforcement, I think they would have.”

When Niceley first floated the idea of arming teachers, it was met with significant opposition. The Tennessee Education Association – the state’s largest teacher’s group – was expected to take a position against the bill. But in a statement Wednesday, the TEA said it did not oppose arming teachers as long as no teacher is "forced to carry a gun" and "goes through SRO training."

The speaker of the Tennessee House, Beth Harwell, was skeptical about allowing teachers to carry weapons, but because Niceley’s bill focuses first on resource officers, she is not opposed, according to her staff members.

Niceley sees no problem with arming teachers, saying that they are already protecting a child’s mind – so why not their body as well?

“If they pass the psychological evaluation, pass the criminal background check and are willing to commit to take the proper level of training, they’ll be just as safe as a resource officer,” Niceley told Fox News.

Those who do oppose the bill see a different problem. They argue that putting more guns in schools could lead to accidents, theft – or worse. According to Jernigan: “It’s a gun in a classroom where I don’t think it’s necessary to be. And now as a parent, I have to worry – is it going to get stolen? Is it going to be used? Is it going to be more harmful than good?”

Tennessee isn’t alone in the debate over arming teachers. The South Dakota House just passed a similar measure. It now goes to the state Senate. Alaska, Maine, Oklahoma, Virginia, South Carolina, Washington, Oregon, Wyoming, Arizona, Nevada, Minnesota and Missouri are also considering bills that might allow teachers or school staff to carry guns. And in Texas, a rural school district in the eastern part of the state has become the second in the state to allow trained teachers to carry concealed weapons.

Tennessee already has experience with armed guards protecting students. Resource officers are present in most high schools and middle schools. In a terrifying standoff two years ago, resource officer Carolyn Gudger held off a gunman who stormed into Sullivan Central High School. She kept him at bay for 10 minutes, until sheriff’s deputies arrived and fatally shot him

But resource officers can’t be everywhere all the time, said Niceley. Adding armed teachers to the mix just gives schools more options.

“We’re expanding a program that’s worked,” he told Fox News. “We know it saves lives, and we’re expanding it. And we’re giving the locals an option to train some of their own personnel. “

States mull whether arming teachers can prevent another school massacre | Fox News

CA. legislators support bill to arm teachers

January 30th, 2013, 1:43 pm
posted by BRIAN JOSEPH, Sacramento Correspondent


In the wake of the Newtown, Conn. school shooting, three Orange County Assembly members are co-authoring legislation to secretly arm California teachers, janitors and other schools officials with concealed weapons.

Orange County Assembly members Curt Hagman, R-Chino Hills; Diane Harkey, R-Dana Point; and Don Wagner, R-Irvine, have signed onto a proposal introduced this week by Assemblyman Tim Donnelly, R-Twin Peaks, a former minuteman known as much for his outspoken opposition of illegal immigration as for the time he tried to bring a loaded gun onto a plane.

Donnelly’s proposal, Assembly Bill 202, is in the same vein as the NRA’s post-Newtown plan to install armed guards in schools. To protect children from crazed gunmen, AB 202 would allow “school districts, county offices of education, and charter schools” to use “general purpose funds” to train any school employee who is qualified and willing to carry a concealed gun on campus.

These volunteers, to be known as “school marshals,” would be anonymous under the bill. AB 202, which Donnelly is calling the “California School Marshal Plan,” would exempt the disclosure of school marshal volunteers from the state’s public records act.

“In light of the devastating tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary,” Donnelly said in a press release about the bill, “we must develop a plan that will provide both true, immediate protection to our children and teachers, and a deterrent to future predators.”

Donnelly says the bill would “simply allow school districts to fund the necessary training to faculty and staff who are already legally allowed to protect their school.”

“We have a moral imperative to protect the children in our schools. We must do so without abandoning our oath and duty to safeguard the Constitutional rights of every Californian,” said Donnelly, who is looking at running for governor in 2014.

http://totalbuzz.ocregister.com/2013/01/30/o-c-legislators-support-bill-to-arm-teachers/90423/

State lawmakers rush to draft gun bills in response to shootings

Published February 10, 2013
FoxNews.com

• 
  FILE: Dec. 27, 2012: Shown here are weapons collected in a Los Angeles Gun Buyback event. (AP)
  
  Democratic lawmakers across the country are proposing gun-control bills in the wake of recent mass-shootings, including at least one far-reaching state measure that might interfere with federal laws.
  
  At least seven states have proposed such legislation. Among the most recent proposals are ones requiring gun owners or makers to buy liability insurance to cover damages for injuries caused by their weapons.
  
  Two California Democrats proposed a bill last week in the state Assembly that encourages owners to attend gun-safety classes and lock up their weapons to get insurance discounts.
  
  Assembly member Philip Ting, of San Francisco, told a local TV station the proposal was comparable to mandatory auto insurance for motorists.
  
  Last week, Democrats in the Colorado House and Senate proposed a slate of gun-control bills including one to make manufacturers and sellers of assault-style weapons legally liable for the damage caused by their firearms.
  
  However, Second Amendment scholar David Kopel told The Denver Post that such a bill would conflict with 2005 federal law that prevents manufacturers and dealers from being held liable for crimes committed with their products.
  
  “However, manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable for damages resulting from defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct and other actions for which they are directly responsible," he told the newspaper.
  
  The lawmakers introduced the bill flanked survivors and family members of victims of two mass shootings in Colorado -- the Columbine High School attack of 1999 and Aurora movie theater in 2012 -- as well as those from the Newtown, Conn., elementary school shooting two months ago.
  
  Like proposals by President Obama and Senate Democrats, the Colorado plan also calls for limiting ammunition magazines to 10 rounds and putting people with severe mental-health problems in the state’s background-check database for potential gun buyers.
  
  State Republican Sen. Greg Brophy called the measure extreme and told the newspaper the proposal was the equivalent of “holding Coors, the distributor and the 7-Eleven from which the 12-pack of beer was stolen responsible for the drunk-driving accident."
  
  New York was the first to enact legislation after the Dec. 14, 2012, shootings at Connecticut’s Sandy Hook elementary school in which 20 first-graders and six adults were killed.
  
  Gov. Andrew Cuomo, a potential 2016 Democratic presidential candidate, last month signed into law bills that bolstered state laws on assault weapons, gun-magazine capacity and reporting potential harmful behavior.
  
  In Maryland, Gov. Martin O’Malley, another potential 2016 Democratic presidential candidate, has proposed an ambitious gun-control package that includes an assault-weapon ban, restrictions on visitor access to schools, fingerprints from gun buyers and keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill.
  
  Connecticut, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania purportedly also have proposed similar measures.
  
  http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/10/democrats-across-country-proposing-gun-bills-in-knee-jerk-response-to-recent/

House approves background checks for gun shows by a 43-26 vote

Julie Ann Grimm | The New Mexican
Posted: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 - 2/13/13
ow they voted
The 43-26 vote by the House on Wednesday to approve legislation requiring criminal background checks for privates sales of firearms at gun shows in New Mexico. Voting yes, in favor of the proposal, were eight Republicans and 35 Democrats. Voting no were 23 Republicans and three Democrats. Not voting or excused was one Republican.?

Republicans voting yes
Alonzo Baldonado, Los Lunas
Kelly Fajardo, Belen
Nate Gentry, Albuquerque
Jason Harper, Rio Rancho
Terry McMillan, Las Cruces
Paul Pacheco, Albuquerque
James White, Albuquerque
Monica Youngblood, Albuquerque

Republicans voting no
Thomas Anderson, Albuquerque
Paul Bandy, Aztec
Donald Bratton, Hobbs
Cathrynn Brown, Carlsbad
Sharon Clahchischilliage, Kirtland
Zachary Cook, Ruidoso
Anna Crook, Clovis
Nora Espinoza, Roswell
Candy Spence Ezzell, Roswell
David Gallegos, Eunice
William Gray, Artesia
Jimmie C. Hall, Albuquerque
Dianne Miller Hamilton, Silver City
Yvette Herrell, Alamogordo
Tim Lewis, Rio Rancho
Jane Powdrell-Culbert, Corrales
Bill Rehm, Albuquerque
Dennis Roch, Texico
James Smith, Sandia Park
James Strickler, Farmington
Thomas Taylor, Farmington
Don Tripp, Socorro
Bob Wooley, Roswell

Democrats voting yes
Eliseo Lee Alcon, Milan
Phillip Archuleta, Las Cruces
Gail Chasey, Albuquerque
Ernest Chavez, Albuquerque
Stephen Easley, Santa Fe
Brian Egolf, Santa Fe
Doreen Gallegos, Las Cruces
Mary Helen Garcia, Las Cruces
Miguel Garcia, Albuquerque
Stephanie Garcia Richard, Los Alamos
Roberto “Bobby” Gonzales, Taos
Dona Irwin, Deming
Sandra Jeff, Crownpoint
Emily Kane, Albuquerque
Georgene Louis, Albuquerque
Patricia Lundstrom, Gallup
James Roger Madalena, Jemez Pueblo
Antonio “Moe” Maestas, Albuquerque
Rodolpho “Rudy” Martinez, Bayard
W. Ken Martinez, Grants
Bill McCamley, Mesilla Park
Rick Miera, Albuquerque
Debbie Rodella, Española
Patricia Roybal Caballero, Albuquerque
Nick Salazar, Ohkay Owingeh
Tomas Salazar, Las Vegas
Edward Sandoval, Albuquerque
Sheryl Williams Stapleton, Albuquerque
Jeff Steinborn, Las Cruces
Mimi Stewart, Albuquerque
Elizabeth “Liz” Thomson, Albuquerque
Carl Trujillo, Santa Fe
Christine Trujillo, Albuquerque
Jim Trujillo, Santa Fe
Luciano “Lucky” Varela, Santa Fe

Democrats voting no
Nathan “Nate” Cote, Organ
George Dodge Jr., Santa Rosa
Henry Kiki Saavedra, Albuquerque

Republicans not voting
Larry Larranaga, Albuquerque

A proposed change in state law to require federal background checks on people who buy firearms at gun shows is on its way to the Senate after clearing the House of Representatives on Wednesday by a 43-26 vote.

The bill represents a compromise from the original proposal by Rep. Miguel Garcia, D-Albuquerque. Most notably, the version moving to the Senate wouldn’t affect private gun sales.

Federal law already requires background checks on people who want to buy from federally licensed firearms dealers, but not for sales that take place between individuals or collectors in private or at gun shows. The New Mexico Firearm Transfer Act would make state law more restrictive.

Backers praised the bipartisan effort, with several noting that Gov. Susana Martinez has said she is likely to sign it into law, as long as is it remains in its current form when it reaches her desk. While all but three of the votes against the House measure came from Republicans, seven votes in favor came from that side of aisle.

Mental-health records are also addressed in the legislation, but its wording mostly codifies current state practices of reporting involuntary commitments for mental-health treatment to the federal database. Garcia said adopting the law will enable the state to capture federal funding to assist with records collection and transmission.

The initial proposal from Garcia would have imposed background checks in nearly every instance in which a gun changes hands, but amendments hashed out in the House Judiciary Committee softened the bill, so it applies only to what’s known as the “gun-show loophole.”

“A lot of people have accused those of us who have expressed interest in gun safety as politicizing a tragedy,” said Rep. Gail Chasey, D-Albuquerque. “I think this is a response to tragedies that have been staggering in their magnitude. Our job as policymakers is to try to examine what possibly could happen that would prevent not every one of these incidents, but some of them.”

Other states have already adopted rules to require background checks at gun shows, and a half-dozen have “universal background check” laws that require checks for every gun purchase. Colorado, which adopted gun-show background checks after the Columbine High School shooting in 2000, is now considering expansion of background checks to include private sales.

The bill approved by the New Mexico House defines gun shows as events where more than 25 firearms are on site and available for transfer. It would require gun-show organizers to arrange for a federally licensed dealer to remain on site during the event to conduct background checks for transfers between individuals. That dealer may charge a fee. Individuals who buy or sell without a background check at a gun show could be charged with a misdemeanor under the proposed law. Antique and relic firearms are exempt from the requirements, as are individuals who already hold a concealed-carry license from the state.

Opponents of the bill argued that expanded background checks wouldn’t have prevented highly publicized mass shootings at a Connecticut elementary school in December or a January incident in which an Albuquerque teen shot and killed several members of his family.

Rep. Dennis Roch, R-Texico, used sarcasm in his speech against the bill, asking why Garcia wasn’t seeking to impose background checks on buyers of blunt objects such as clubs and hammers that are sometimes used in homicides, or even the flatware knives he saw for sale at a recent wedding event.

“Maybe we should close that all-dangerous bridal-show loophole,” Roch said.
Rep. William Rehm, R-Albuquerque, said the issue was best left for the federal government to sort out. He also offered an amendment to the bill calling for the state Department of Health to report patients who are part of the medical marijuana program to the FBI database. (Federal law also prohibits “illegal drug users” from purchasing a firearm from a licensed dealer.)

Several Democrats said that suggestion violated privacy laws. The amendment died on a 39-29 vote.

Pat Davis, executive director of ProgressNow New Mexico, said the bill supported by the nonprofit isn’t perfect, but “is an important first step in enacting meaningful reform.”

“New Mexico’s representatives deserve credit for setting partisan politics aside to pass legislation supported by an overwhelming majority of the people,” he said. “In the wake of horrific shootings around the country and right here in New Mexico, there is clearly strong demand for sensible gun laws that help prevent dangerous or unstable people from obtaining firearms.”

Davis noted the absence during Wednesday’s two-hours-plus hearing of gun-rights advocates who have previously packed House committee hearings to oppose the bill and have sometimes paced outside the Roundhouse with rifles on their shoulders.

“This week, there has been a notable turn in the visibility and the outspokenness of folks against this bill,” said Davis, who added that the governor’s statement of support appears to have had an effect on opposition. “It seems to us to be a conscious decision to stand down and let this go.”

Meanwhile, other related legislation will be debated by House members, including House Memorial 54, introduced by Rep. Thomas Anderson, R-Albuquerque, which seeks a University of New Mexico study of the “societal reasons behind mass shootings.” Rehm is trying to increase mandatory sentences for felons who use guns and for crimes committed with guns, and a number of other bills would allow concealed weapons to be carried into more places than allowed under current laws. Rep. Stephen Easely, D-Santa Fe, wants to prohibit weapons with certain characteristics that classify them as “assault weapons.” Chasey said she plans to introduce another measure before the deadline for introductions Wednesday.

Contact Julie Ann Grimm 986-3017 or jgrimm@sfnewmexican.com. Follow her on Twitter @julieanngrimm.

http://www.santafenewmexican.com/Local%20News/021413xgrGunLoophole

Stronger Gun-Control Measures Clear Initial Hurdle in the Colorado House


Matthew Staver for The New York Times
State Representative Rhonda Fields, a Denver Democrat and co-sponsor of gun-control bills, speaking Friday at the Colorado Capitol.

By DAN FROSCH
Published: February 16, 2013

DENVER — Lawmakers on Friday moved closer to passing a package of new gun restrictions in Colorado, a state that has lived in the shadows of two of the worst mass shootings in United States history.

After hours of debate that lasted well into the evening, Colorado’s House of Representatives gave initial approval to legislation requiring background checks on private gun sales and placing limits on ammunition magazines — measures that were being watched nationally by advocates on both sides of the gun debate.

The bills were part of an array of gun proposals being pushed hard by state Democrats this year after last summer’s shooting at an Aurora movie theater, and more recently, the killings at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn., in December.

“There is a common thread that we see in these massacres,” said Representative Rhonda Fields, a Democrat from Aurora, who sponsored both pieces of legislation, and whose own son was shot to death in 2005. “They’re using high-capacity magazines so they can unleash as many bullets as they can, to kill as many people as they can, in our schools, our theaters and our churches.”

The debate over whether to enhance restrictions on firearms has become a contentious focal point of state legislative sessions around the country this year.
Perhaps nowhere has this been the case more than in Colorado, a state with deep conservative and independent streaks. But it is also a place that has been pondering tougher guns laws since the Columbine school shooting in 1999, and where the increasing clout of Democratic lawmakers in recent years has made gun control legislation a political possibility.

Friday’s debate on the House floor capped a week in which gun bills proposed by Democrats cleared several legislative committees, often after lengthy and emotional comments, mostly from proponents of gun rights. Republican legislators argued for hours against the measures, saying the proposed magazine limits — 15 rounds for guns and 8 for shotguns — were merely arbitrary and would have little effect on gun violence.

“It makes no difference to public safety if there are 10 rounds in a magazine, whether there are 15 rounds in a magazine or whether there are 30 rounds,” said Representative Jared Wright, a Republican from Fruita.

State Republicans also sharply criticized the background check proposal, which would mandate checks on private gun sales. Sales of antique guns and gifts of guns between immediate family members would be exempted under the measure.

Those buying guns from federally licensed gun dealers must already undergo a background check in Colorado, as they do in every other state under federal law.
“All this bill does is make us law-abiding citizens go through another hoop,” said Representative Jerry Sonnenberg, a Republican from Sterling. “It doesn’t stop criminals, those that can’t get background checks, those that are felons, from breaking into my house and stealing my guns. Doesn’t stop them from meeting a guy down the street and buying a gun there.”

But with Democrats holding a majority in the House, both bills received preliminary approval. By procedure, the bills must receive a final House vote, which could come as early as Monday, before heading to the state Senate, where Democrats also outnumber Republicans.

“We continue to hear that responsible gun owners do not commit crimes,” said Representative Beth McCann, a Democrat from Denver, who co-sponsored the background check legislation with Ms. Fields. “So it’s hard for me to understand how responsible gun owners would have any objections to this bill. All this is doing is requiring everyone to go through the same background check.”

According to the Brady Campaign To Prevent Gun Violence, Colorado would join New York, California and Rhode Island as states that require sweeping background checks on virtually all gun purchases.

Currently, only four states prohibit magazines that hold over 10 rounds, while New Jersey and Maryland restrict magazines with more than 15 and 20 rounds respectively, the group said.

Two other gun measures put forth by Colorado Democrats also received preliminary approval on Friday by House lawmakers. One bill would ban concealed weapons on college campuses. The other would charge gun buyers for background checks.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/17/us/gun-control-laws-clear-initial-hurdle-in-colorado.html?_r=0

Colo. House passes gun-control measures

By IVAN MORENO, Associated Press
February 18, 2013 | Updated: February 18, 2013 6:02pm

DENVER (AP) — Limits on the size of ammunition magazines and universal background checks passed the Colorado House on Monday, during a second day of emotional debates that has drawn attention from the White House as lawmakers try to address recent mass shootings.

The bills were among four that the Democratic-controlled House passed amid strong resistance from Republicans, who were joined by a few Democrats to make some of the votes close.

The proposed ammunition restrictions limit magazines to 15 rounds for firearms, and eight for shotguns.

Three Democrats joined all Republicans voting no on the bill, but the proposal passed 34-31.

"Enough is enough. I'm sick and tired of bloodshed," said Democratic Rep. Rhonda Fields, a sponsor of the bill and representative of the district where the shootings at an Aurora theater happened last summer. Fields' son was also fatally shot in 2005.

Republicans argued that the proposals restrict Second Amendment rights and won't prevent mass shootings like the ones in Aurora and a Connecticut elementary school.

"This bill will never keep evil people from doing evil things," said Republican Rep. Jerry Sonnenberg.

The House also approved a bill requiring background checks on all gun purchases, including those between private sellers and firearms bought online.

Other proposals would ban concealed firearms at colleges and stadiums, and another requires that gun purchasers pay for their own background checks.

Democrats eked out the closest vote on the background check measure, which passed on a 33-32 vote.

Democratic Rep. Ed Vigil, who represents rural southern Colorado, voted against the four bills, saying his decision was rooted in the state's rugged history.

"This is part of our heritage. This is part of what it took to settle this land. I cannot turn my back on that," he said.

But even though a few Democrats joined Republicans in voting no for the bills, the Democrats' 37-28 advantage in the House gave them enough leeway.

The Senate still needs to consider the proposals. Democrats will need to be more unified in their support there because their advantage is only 20-15. That means Republicans need only three Democrats to join them to defeat the bills.

House lawmakers began debating the bills Friday. Lawmakers debated for 12 hours before giving initial approval to the bills, setting up the final recorded votes Monday. During the debate Friday, Vice President Joe Biden called four Democrats, including two in moderate districts, to solidify support for the measures.

Democratic Rep. Dominick Moreno, who represents a district in suburban Denver, was among the four lawmakers. He said Biden "emphasized the importance of Colorado's role in shaping national policy around this issue."

Castle Rock Republican Rep. Carole Murray brought up Biden's calls during Monday's debate, saying she didn't appreciate "East-coast politicians" trying to influence Colorado legislators.

Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper supports the expanded background checks, and thinks gun buyers should pay for them. He also said he may support limits on the size of magazines, if lawmakers agree to a number between 15 and 20. He said he hasn't decided whether to support banning concealed firearms on campuses and stadiums.

Republicans say students should have the right to defend themselves.

"Do not disarm our young adults in general and our young women in particular on our college campuses in the name of a gun-free zone," Republican Rep. Jim Wilson said.

The gun debate highlights a fundamental philosophical difference between many Democrats and Republicans.

"I resent the implication that unless we all arm ourselves we will not be adequately protected," said Dickey Lee Hullinghorst, the Democrats' leader in the House.

Republican Rep. Christ Holbert became emotional while explaining his opposition to the bills. He said he understood Fields cares about the bills, because of her district and because her son was shot and killed in 2005.

"But I care passionately about the United States Constitution and the constitution of this state, and the oath that we have taken," Holbert said.

http://www.chron.com/news/us/article/Colo-House-passes-gun-control-measures-4287534.php

http://www.alipac.us/f9/n-y-bill-wou...urance-273070/

Maryland on its way to becoming one of toughest gun-control states

By David Hill
The Washington Times
Thursday, February 28, 2013

The Maryland Senate voted Thursday to approve Gov. Martin O'Malley’s gun-control legislation, clearing the bill’s biggest hurdle and sending it to the House where its passage would make Maryland’s gun laws among the strictest in the nation.

The Senate voted 28-19 in favor of the Democratic governor’s proposal, which would ban assault weapons, require residents to obtain a license before buying handguns and strengthen protections against purchases by the mentally ill. A pair of House committees were scheduled to take up their version of the bill Friday after three days of debate in the Senate.

“Violence is a cancer in our schools, in our homes and in our communities that doesn’t just ravage the families and the victims, but the rest of us,” state Sen. Roger Manno, Montgomery Democrat, said before Thursday’s vote. “It erodes our society, and doing something about it is a choice that we have.”

Maryland is now poised to become one of the first states to pass stricter gun laws in the wake of last year’s mass shooting in Newtown, Conn., and it may not be the last. Democratic lawmakers in a number of states are proposing legislation to limit high-powered guns and keep handguns away from illegal straw purchasers and the mentally ill. They have taken the lead of President Obama, who called on Congress to pass tighter national gun laws in the wake of the Sandy Hook tragedy, only to see efforts stalled by Republican resistance and fights over sequestration and Cabinet appointments.

Similar efforts are ongoing in states such as New York, Connecticut, Delaware and Colorado, where the state Senate is weighing a House-approved proposal to require broader background checks and tighter limits on magazine capacity.

Such proposals have been heavily criticized by Republicans and some conservative and rural Democrats who say they will inconvenience law-abiding gun owners while doing little to deter criminals.

“My constituents think this bill will adversely affect them a lot more than it will the criminals,” Maryland state Sen. Bryan W. Simonaire, Anne Arundel Republican, told The Associated Press.

Maryland’s gun control laws are already considered among the nation’s toughest.

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence ranked Maryland’s gun laws in 2011 as the seventh strictest, behind California, New Jersey, Massachusetts, New York, Connecticut and Hawaii.

“It’s going to be stronger than the laws were before in Maryland,” said Daniel Webster, director of the Johns Hopkins University Center for Gun Policy and Research, who has spoken in favor of stricter gun laws. “But still, if you are someone who want to purchase a handgun as a law-abiding adult, there’s not a lot of hurdles placed before you.”

The House Judiciary and Health and Government Operations committees will hold a joint hearing Friday on the House version of the bill.

The legislation is expected to receive less opposition in the House than in the Senate, where its most vocal and influential opponent was Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller Jr.

Mr. Miller, Prince George’s Democrat, voted for the bill after expressing concerns that its $100 license-to-purchase fee was too burdensome and that its required fingerprinting for purchasers could violate the Second Amendment.

A Senate committee lowered the licensing fee to $50 and lowered 10-year renewal fees to $20 but chose to keep the fingerprinting requirement.

Mr. Miller voted in favor of a failed amendment to eliminate the provision but ultimately supported the bill.

In the House, Speaker Michael E. Busch, Anne Arundel Democrat, has said he expects to have at least the necessary 71 votes to pass the bill.

Todd Eberly, coordinator of public policy studies at St. Mary’s College of Maryland, said he expects the bill to pass, even though Democrats from conservative and rural areas could receive pressure to vote against it.

“Between the two chambers, the House has been the more progressive of the two,” he said. “Getting out of the Senate was a tremendous victory for O'Malley.”

Maryland on its way to becoming one of toughest gun-control states - Washington Times