Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  Gun Control Discussion    Colorado Free Resistance
Page 1 ... 15 16 17 18

Moderators: Chris Orndorff, LDD
Colorado Free Resistance Login/Join 
Lead slingin'
Parrot Head
Picture of Modern Day Savage
posted Hide Post
The CO General Assembly is scheduled to adjourn May 3, 2019... 15 days from now. However, over the last several weeks I've been hearing rumors that Governor Polis is considering calling for a Special Legislative session to keep the GA in session.

Given last year's strategy of waiting until the end of the legislative session before introducing last year's version of the Red Flag bill I've been waiting for this session's "last minute surprise".

With the concern and disruption that the emotionally disturbed 18 year old girl caused in the Denver area over the Columbine High School shooting anniversary this week there is a push by gun control advocates calling for gun purchase "waiting periods".

Following Obama-era former Chief-of-Staff Rahm Emanuel's famous doctrine "never let a crisis go to waste" and in keeping with Democrat legislators current trend of slamming their agenda through at machine-gun like pace I don't think it is inconceivable that they might push for more last minute anti-2A bills.

With the Red Flag bill signed into law I'm not aware of any other gun control proposals currently at the state level...but stay ready for action.
Posts: 4261 | Registered: August 21, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Lead slingin'
Parrot Head
Picture of Modern Day Savage
posted Hide Post
I was aware that this bill had been introduced in the Senate, but I was forced to prioritize my time on the Red Flag bill as it progressed and so I haven't read it or even paid much attention to it...but I thought I'd take a moment to mention it now.

The bill was introduced early in the legislative session and quickly sent to the Committee on State, Veterans, & Military affairs where it died quickly with a status of Postpone Indefinitely.

SB19-093 Firearms Rights Of Medical Marijuana Users

Concerning firearm possession by persons who lawfully use medical marijuana.


Current law prohibits a person from carrying a firearm if the person has a prior conviction for a felony or conspiracy to commit a felony pursuant to Colorado law, the law of any other state, or federal law. The bill clarifies that a person is not prohibited from carrying a firearm if the prior conviction was for the possession or use of marijuana that was lawfully possessed or used pursuant to the Colorado constitution.

Under current law, a sheriff may deny an application for a permit to carry a concealed handgun when the applicant is ineligible to possess a firearm pursuant to Colorado or federal law or the applicant is an unlawful user of, or addicted to, a controlled substance, as defined by federal law or regulation. The bill clarifies that a person is not considered to be ineligible to possess a firearm pursuant to federal law nor considered to be an unlawful user of, or addicted to, a controlled substance because of the possession or use of medical marijuana pursuant to the Colorado constitution.

The bill clarifies that the department of public safety is prohibited from sharing confidential information relating to the medical marijuana registry with law enforcement for the purpose of conducting a background check related to the transfer of firearms.
Posts: 4261 | Registered: August 21, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Lead slingin'
Parrot Head
Picture of Modern Day Savage
posted Hide Post
Originally posted by Storm:
Originally posted by Modern Day Savage:
Yet one more point of damning evidence of the onerous intentions behind the crafting of this version of the ERPO bill, and by just now noting it I'm revealing my lack of legal knowledge, but when I read the first version of the bill I had noted a "Safety Clause" provision at the end of the bill, but at the time I thought it was merely an attempt by the writers to provide supposed justification for the need for such a bill...uh....nope...I was wrong.

In catching some other interviews on both the Red Flag bill, as well as some others, I'm learning that the Democrat writers added this clause intentionally.

Colorado law provides that, if a bill is signed into law and is largely unsupported by the voters that through a (successful) petition process it can be prevented from going into effect. However, if the bill writers include a Safety Clause in the wording this blocks any such effort by the citizens to counter the bill. Obviously those ramming this bill through anticipated the stong opposition to it.

It wasn't until I re-listened to the Brauchler interview with Sheriff Reams that I caught the significance of it. Apologies for missing this aspect and not catching it sooner.

I think that only applies to a simple repeal via referendum. I don't think it applies to a citizen initiated constitutional amendment.

Remember that constitutional amendment on the 2016 ballot, making it more difficult to get a citizen initiated amendment on the ballot? I railed against that, because I knew that was going to screw conservatives in the state. There were many conservatives vocally supporting that amendment, claiming it was going to stop the liberals from dominating Colorado. We only ended up screwing ourselves.

Storm, I was doing some research and came across this recent article and thought it was interesting...I had no idea that the Safety Clause was used so frequently.

Caldara: Lawmakers’ abuse of “safety clause” a slap at Colorado voters

December 26, 2018 By Jon Caldara

Something seems a bit incongruent about the Blue Wave that hit Colorado on election day and swept Democrats into every corner of Colorado state government. The very same voters who voted like Californians when it came to candidates, voted like Coloradans when it came to issues.

They voted down a progressive income tax plan for “education.” They killed a statewide sales tax and debt increase for roads and transit. They rejected a ban on fracking.

So, on one hand they voted for hard-edged progressives, including the freshman lady legislators who this week made clear they don’t want to be called “freshMAN” because they say it’s sexist (one of their first bills is to rename “manhole cover” to “person-hole cover”). On the other hand, they voted for fiscal restraint.

One reason for this seeming dichotomy might be that we voters expect to be asked, directly at the ballot box, on the important issues. Coloradans are becoming more socially liberal, and comfortable voting for liberals, knowing that big questions of tax, debt, and constitutional changes must first be run by us. It’s why the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights (TABOR) remains so popular even after a quarter century assault from the taxation-without-consent crowd.

We also know that we can override lawmakers via our citizen’s initiative. We the people have no problem doing what our elected officials refuse to do. It was the people of Colorado, not the legislature, who directly gave women the right to vote, legalized marijuana, limited terms of office, passed transparency laws and demanded TABOR.

But there is another mechanism for direct control over the legislature, although it hasn’t been used since 1932.

We the people of Colorado also have the right to veto any bill the legislature passes into law.

It’s called a referendum. Unlike a citizen’s initiative, that can change state law, a referendum invalidates a new law. (Oddly when the legislature refers a constitutional change to the people for approval, that is also called a “referendum,” but that’s not what I’m talking about here.)

If we don’t like a bill they pass, we have 90 days from the end of the legislative session (early May) to gather some 125,000 valid signatures to force a public vote on it. The voters can then reject that new law like Gary Busey at a single’s bar and make like the bill never passed. If you’re old enough to remember the old “Ten Commandments” movie, the pharaoh commands that Moses’ name be stricken from all the books. It’s kinda of like that, with the people playing pharaoh.

Folks hated taxes back in 1932 too. According to the Legislative Council, that was the last time the people tried to remove a new law, a tax on margarine, via the citizen’s referendum.

So why hasn’t the referendum been used since then? Because we’ve loved all the laws they’ve passed for the last 86 years?

It will shock you to know that the legislature found a way around being challenged by us, the voting rabble. The scheme goes like this – if they add the so-called “safety clause” to the end of any bill, it becomes immune from removal via citizen referendum.

This “safety clause” says the bill is so incredibly important, it’s needed for the “for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, and safety.” Our state constitution says those are the magic words needed to protect the bill from being directly challenged by the people.

So, after 1932 the “safety clause” was added to the end of every single bill.

Many legislators didn’t even know it was an option NOT to include the clause. So, bills like naming the official state fish stated it was needed for the “immediate preservation of the public peace, health, and safety,” as if mass violence was breaking out all the state because of confusion over which fish best represents Colorado. House Bill 94-1164 then restored public peace by naming the green cutthroat trout our official state fish.

To the legislature’s credit, the safety clause is being attached to fewer and fewer bills since 1997. But still 43 percent of the bills that Gov. John Hickenlooper signed this year had them.

Lawmakers should stop fearing a rebuke of their pet bills by the folks they claim they represent. They should stop chickening out and slapping the safety clause on their bills, especially controversial bills, where voters may really want a say.

Jon Caldara is president of the Independence Institute, a free market think tank in Denver.
Posts: 4261 | Registered: August 21, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Lead slingin'
Parrot Head
Picture of Modern Day Savage
posted Hide Post
Our friends at Rally for Our Rights have a couple public events coming up that I wanted to let members know about.

Rally for Our Rights Upcoming Events

Rally for our Rights at Tanner Gun Show in DENVER, CO-April 27 @ 9:00 am - April 28 @ 4:00 pm at Denver Mart, 451 E 58th Ave
Denver, CO 80216

Rally for our Rights will be at the Tanner Gun Show Saturday, April 27th and Sunday, April 28th. We'll have information about our organization, upcoming events, how to get involved, and more. Stop by our booth and say hello! Saturday - 9am to 5pm Sunday - 9am to 4pm

TAKE BACK THE SECOND : A Rally For Our Rights
May 18 @ 11:00 am - 2:00 pm
Colorado Capital, 200 East Colfax
Denver, CO 80203

IT'S TIME TO TAKE BACK THE SECOND! Saturday, May 18th 11am – 2pm Colorado State Capitol – west steps 200 Colfax Ave Denver, CO 80203 Join with your fellow Second Amendment supporters at Rally for our Rights : Take Back The Second – a demonstration in support of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms! With the passage of Colorado's HB19-1177 "Red Flag" ERPO gun confiscation bill, people are angry - and they should be!

We really need to let legislators know just how angry we are about the legislation they have rammed through. Making public appearances and connecting our faces to our opposition to their pernicious legislation is an effective way to do it... demonstrating strength in numbers and our unified opposition. Anyone who can spare some time to participate in either of the rallys I'm sure would be welcomed by the Rally for Our Rights crowd.

I know for certain that I won't be able to make the Tanner Gun show Rally. I'm still trying to find a way to make the Take Back the Second rally at the Capitol.
Posts: 4261 | Registered: August 21, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Lead slingin'
Parrot Head
Picture of Modern Day Savage
posted Hide Post
The gun violence billboards that have been put up outside Weld county in an effort to criticize Sheriff Ream's position on the Red Flag bill have been getting airplay in the news lately.

Pictures of the bill boards, the woman who paid for them, and Sheriff Reams being interviewed are in the linked article.

Boulder Woman Uses Billboards To Spread Gun Violence Message In Weld County

By Rick Sallinger April 23, 2019 at 6:35 pm

WELD COUNTY, Colo. (CBS4) – Inspired by the movie “Three Billboards Outside Ebbing Missouri,” Lindasue Smollen of Boulder put up her own billboard messages after passage of the “Red Flag Bill.”

“Sheriff Reams up there decided he will not enforce it, and he has decided on his own it’s unconstitutional,” Smollen told CBS4’s Rick Sallinger.

The six billboards read in part, “More Americans have died of gun violence since 1970… than in all wars in American history.”

“It’s really about education. This is not political. This is not a democratic issue, it’s not a republican issue, it’s a human rights issue,” Smollen said.

The billboards are located right in the heart of Weld County where Sheriff Steve Reams has famously said he won’t honor Colorado’s newest gun law.

“Even if that means being incarcerated in my own jail,” the sheriff said.

He called the placement of the billboards in Weld County ridiculous saying he believes most constituents agree with his point of view. He defended the right to post the message.

“It’s that person’s First Amendment rights. If that’s how they want to spend it, so be it.”

CBS4 asked Smollen why she didn’t just send the sheriff a letter.

“I certainly could. I think my billboards are more effective,” she answered.

The billboards have drawn support and angry comments, one person posted online, “Keep your business in Boulder. You are there for a reason.”

Smollen responded by saying, “You should be so lucky to live in Boulder.”

The billboards cost $9,000. Smollen paid for them out of her own pocket and is hoping to get some of that money back on a GoFundMe page.
Posts: 4261 | Registered: August 21, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Spread the Disease
Picture of flesheatingvirus
posted Hide Post
Originally posted by Modern Day Savage:
The billboards cost $9,000. Smollen paid for them out of her own pocket and is hoping to get some of that money back on a GoFundMe page.

HA! I'm sure that will work out just as well as if someone on our side did it. Roll Eyes


-- Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past me I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain. --
Posts: 14717 | Location: New Mexico | Registered: October 14, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Lead slingin'
Parrot Head
Picture of Modern Day Savage
posted Hide Post
The General Assembly was in session yesterday trying to cram through as much of their Democrat agenda as they possibly could, however this legislative session was finally adjourned at 9 PM last night.

As of last week there were @ 300 bills left in committee and my understanding was that there were still @ 200 bills in committee at the time they adjourned. Despite everything the Democrats accomplished on their agenda there are still rumors that the governor may call for a special session.

Even if there is no special legislative session called for the various recalls and petitions are just kicking into gear so please stay tuned.

We took significant hits this session. Take 5, grab some chow, grab some rack time, gear-up, and be ready for the next phase of the fight... it is imperative that we hit back and send a message to the Democrats that rammed through their over-reaching agenda.

To everyone who participates in this thread and to all that contact their elected reps and make their feelings known, and for all that appear at rallys and who vote... Thank You!

Also, please remember that Rally for Our Rights is holding a Take Back the Second rally at the State Capitol on May 18th.
Posts: 4261 | Registered: August 21, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Lead slingin'
Parrot Head
Picture of Modern Day Savage
posted Hide Post
[photos of Reps. Saine and Williams in the linked article]

Legal challenge to Red Flag law to be filed in District Court

May 3, 2019 By Scott Weiser

DENVER–The controversial Red Flag bill signed into law by Gov. Jared Polis April 12 allowing confiscation of firearms from persons deemed a “substantial risk” to themselves or others is being challenged on legislative procedural and constitutional grounds.

A complaint obtained by Complete Colorado, but not yet filed, by Rocky Mountain Gun Owners (RMGO), Rep. Patrick Neville, R-Castle Rock representing the House minority caucus, Rep. Lori Saine, R-Firestone, and Rep. Dave Williams, R-Colorado Springs, asks the court to rule that the Red Flag law is “null, void and of no effect.”

Citing a provision of the Colorado Constitution requiring bills be read at length on at least two different occasions on the floor of each legislative chamber, the complaint describes how on March 1, the chair of the Committee of the Whole in the House of Representatives refused to have the bill read at length despite a request by Rep. Williams to do so.

Shortly thereafter Rep. Saine made the same request and the chair said the motion “will not be considered.”

In order to waive reading of the bill at length, unanimous consent from all members present is constitutionally required.

The complaint points out that the motions by Williams and Saine “clearly meant that there was not unanimous consent of the members present to dispense with the reading of the bill at length.”

In another dispute over reading bills at length earlier this session, Republicans went to court because the Democrat majority used multiple computers reading different parts of a bill simultaneously, each at 650 words per minute, the maximum speed the program is capable of.

In that case, decided March 19, District Court Judge David H. Goldberg issued a preliminary injunction, saying he was “unable to discern a single word from the tape played during the court proceeding” ordering that “the Secretary of the Senate, upon a proper objection, must comply with Const. art. V, §20 and §22 b and employ a methodology that is designed to read legislation in an intelligible and comprehensive manner, and at an understandable speed.”

In his ruling Judge Goldberg, citing an 1889 Colorado Supreme Court case writes, “The object of the requirement that every bill be read at length on two different days in each house is to “prevent, so far as possible, fraud and trickery and deceit and subterfuge in the enactment of bills, and to prevent hasty and ill-considered legislation”… This requirement is mandatory. If either house violates this requirement in enacting a law, the law so enacted is invalid.”

The RMGO complaint says, “At no time was the complete text of HB 1177 read at length in the Colorado House of Representatives.”

No date for filing the complaint has been announced.
Posts: 4261 | Registered: August 21, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Lead slingin'
Parrot Head
Picture of Modern Day Savage
posted Hide Post
Although the various groups and committees have formed my understanding is that the elected representative must have been in office for 6 months before any effort to recall them can begin...with June coming up several of these newly elected reps. will have been in office long enough and the recall efforts are ramping up.

These recall efforts aren't going to be 'cake walks' and the Democrats, learning their lesson from the 2013 recalls, have formed their own groups to oppose the recall of any Democrats...and funding them with "outside" money.

Please consider joining these recall efforts with whatever time you can contribute, signing the various petitions (if eligible) and donating to them.

[note: picture of Rep. Galindo and the district she represented as well as a hyperlink to referenced info in linked article]

Outside money pours into Colorado recall fight

Tyler Silvy, Greeley Tribune via Tribune Content Agency May 11, 2019 Updated May 13, 2019

UPDATE 5/12: In a stunning announcement Sunday, state Rep. Rochelle Galindo, the Greeley Democrat facing a campaign to recall her from office, said she is resigning from the legislature immediately, citing unspecified allegations against her. More details here.

The recall fight surrounding Democratic Rep. Rochelle Galindo is shaping up as a proxy war, with outside money dominating the effort, according to the latest campaign finance filings on the Colorado Secretary of State’s website.

With less than a month to go before recall proponents must turn in 5,696 valid signatures to force a recall election, 99.76 percent of the money donated to push — or fight — the recall has come from outside of Galindo’s House District 50.

The district includes portions of east Greeley, as well as Garden City and parts of Evans.

Still, representatives from the pro- and anti-recall side bristle at the “proxy fight” moniker.

Stacey Kjeldgaard, a recall effort organizer, said the people signing the petitions to recall Galindo aren’t a proxy.

“This is the first fight to bring back common sense to Colorado and Weld County will lead the way,” Kjeldgaard said via text message.

“The thousands of HD50 voters who have signed the petitions don’t think this is a ‘proxy’ fight. This is a fight for their families, their jobs, their schools, their communities.”

Curtis Hubbard, spokesman for Democracy First Colorado, which has raised about $75,000 to fight the recall effort, said it’s unfair to
look at the recall fight through the lens of a “proxy war.”

“We’re coming to the defense of lawmakers who are being targeted in unfair recalls that are being pushed by what is widely believed to be special interests and scammers.”

Democracy First Colorado and Our Colorado Way of Life are both largely bankrolled by Washington, D.C.,-based organizations, including the dark money group America Votes, and Galindo’s own committee doesn’t have any local donations since the recall effort was launched in late March. Those groups have raised about $124,000 to date.

Hubbard said there will be more support from within Colorado in upcoming filings.

Galindo stressed that her supporters have been out in the community.

“This is not a fight I asked for but we are fighting back with grassroots volunteer-driven work and we have already talked to thousands of HD50 residents,” Galindo said. “Their out of district money shows that this is not something being supported by the community.”

The Committee to Recall Rochelle Galindo has raised about $105,000, and so far $540 of that has come from House District 50 residents, although donations have poured in from around Weld County and Colorado, according to the group’s Thursday filing.

There could be more to come, as group organizer Stacey Kjeldgaard, a former chairwoman of the Weld County GOP, told The Tribune more than a month ago that the group had solicited pledges of $300,000, including pledged donations from oil and gas companies.

When asked about those promises, Kjeldgaard said via text that she anticipates money coming in throughout the campaign.

“This is a marathon, not a sprint,” she said, adding that the money is still pledged but the group may not need it because of strong volunteer support.

Kjeldgaard’s group has spent nearly $60,000, including $50,000 to hire Lincoln Strategy Group, which specializes in signature gathering and voter turnout operations. That firm’s founder, Nathan Sproul, has been a major player in national politics, previously under the banner of Sproul and Associates, which did work for the McCain-Palin presidential campaign.

But the Republican Party and Mitt Romney’s 2012 campaign severed ties to Sproul after widespread allegations of voter fraud that eventually led to felony charges for three employees but no consequences for the company, according to national reporting from The New York Times and Fortune.

Sproul was back in the fold during the 2016 presidential campaign, earning $1.8 million for get-out-the-vote efforts for the Republican National Committee and Donald J. Trump For President.

The Committee to Recall Rochelle Galindo spent another $5,500 to hire polling group Wenzel Strategies, which has done numerous polls for World Net Daily, a fringe online website known for promoting conspiracy theories.

Kjeldgaard didn’t respond to questions about either group.
Posts: 4261 | Registered: August 21, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Lead slingin'
Parrot Head
Picture of Modern Day Savage
posted Hide Post
Here is an article on the recall of Rep. Tom Sullivan, who sponsored the recently passed Red Flag Law.

[note: there is a picture of Rep. Sullivan and several hyperlinks in the linked article]

Petitions OK'd to recall Tom Sullivan, Colorado lawmaker who backed 'red flag' gun bill

Ernest Luning, Colorado Politics Ernest Luning Ernest Luning, Colorado Politics May 13, 2019

A petition to recall state Rep. Tom Sullivan, the Arapahoe County Democrat whose son was killed in the Aurora theater shootings, was approved Monday by the Secretary of State's Office.

Sullivan was a main sponsor of the "red flag" gun bill approved in this year's legislative session. The new law lets a judge consider evidence that a gun owner poses a danger to himself and others. If so, those guns can be seized temporarily while the owner gets help.

Recall leader Kristi Brown, vice chairwoman of the Colorado Republican Party, said Sullivan and his Democratic House colleagues "shut down the voice of parents in Colorado. People in Colorado, and parents in particular, deserve to be listened to."

Brown said she's launching the recall as a "citizen and a mom," not as a GOP officer, but she anticipates state Republicans will support the effort.

"As a party, we are going to support recalls," she said, pointing to statements made by U.S. Rep. Ken Buck, who was elected state party chairman in March.

Republicans and their conservative allies have said they plan to launch a dozen or so recalls against Democrats.

Sullivan was elected to Arapahoe County's Republican-leaning House District 37 in November by an 8 percentage point margin.

He unseated Assistant House GOP leader Cole Wist, who last year sponsored a version of the "red flag" gun legislation backed this year by Sullivan.

Sullivan showed up at the Capitol every day of the session wearing a leather jacket that belonged to his son, Alex, one of 12 victims killed in the 2012 shootings at an Aurora movie theater. And the threat of a recall doesn't intimidate him, he said.

“Alex being murdered in the Aurora Theater Massacre was the hardest thing I’ve ever dealt with. Threats from extremists like Rocky Mountain Gun Owners do not scare me, and they will certainly never stop me from protecting other families from that same heartbreak," Sullivan said in a statement to Colorado Politics.

"I won’t be bullied by the gun lobby and I will always keep my promises to my community and my constituents."

Sullivan's detractors have until July 12 to gather 10,035 valid signatures — 25 percent of the total votes cast in the last election for his office.

If they succeed, officials would then set a date for a recall election, and candidates hoping to replace Sullivan could gather petition signatures to appear on the same ballot.

A recall aimed at former state Rep. Rochelle Galindo concluded Sunday when the Greeley Democrat announced she was resigning her seat due to unspecified allegations that had emerged against her in recent days.

Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, a hard-line Second Amendment advocacy group, is committed to help Kristi Brown oust Sullivan, said Dudley Brown, executive director of RMGO.

"I welcome any group that wants to jump in on it," Kristi Brown said. "A lot of Colorado parents in my district are upset with Rep. Sullivan and the way he voted."

But, she added: "I did not file it because RMGO asked me to."

In the petition approved Monday, Kristi Brown argues that Sullivan "should be recalled for ignoring the will of his constituents."

The petition lists four bills he sponsored or supported. In addition to the red flag bill, they are the new law regulating the oil and gas industry, a law that sets sex education standards that public schools can adopt, and legislation that has Colorado join with other states to award their electoral votes for president to the winner of the national popular vote.

Another group is gathering signatures in an attempt to overturn the 'National Popular Vote' law, which isn't expected to take effect before next year's presidential election.

Kristi Brown said she expects to have ample resources available for the recall campaign but declined to say how much.

But Democracy First Colorado, formed by Democrats to defend lawmakers from recalls, is ready, said spokesman Curtis Hubbard.

"Recalls are not the forum for policy disputes. We will vigorously defend the lawmakers being targeted by scammers and special interests looking to bolster their causes and line their pockets at taxpayers’ expense," Hubbard said.

Dudley Brown and RMGO played key roles in a series of 2013 recalls over gun-control laws passed by the Democratic-controlled legislature.

Voters ousted Senate President John Morse of Fountain and state Sen. Angela Giron of Pueblo. State Sen. Evie Hudak of Arvada later resigned in the face of a threatened recall, allowing a Democratic vacancy committee to name her replacement.
Posts: 4261 | Registered: August 21, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Lead slingin'
Parrot Head
Picture of Modern Day Savage
posted Hide Post
Here is a website link to a group working on the Douglas County Sheriff Tony Spurlock recall effort:

Recall Sheriff Tony Spurlock-Facebook group
Posts: 4261 | Registered: August 21, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 ... 15 16 17 18    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  Gun Control Discussion    Colorado Free Resistance

© SIGforum 2019