So what's the latest, folks?

Might be a PCS to this general vicinity in my future.

quote:

Originally posted by Rob Decker:
So what's the latest, folks?

Might be a PCS to this general vicinity in my future.

Latest in what regard? As mentioned recently, we are waiting on the trial to begin in a couple weeks.

Trial started today, haven't heard any other news than that. I'm sure MDS will update when information is available. BTW MDS, thanks for all the updates .

I had (another) late day today so I am slow to get this info up, thanks bigpond for the update bump.

Both the Plaintiff's and the Governor's Trial Briefs were filed on March 14.

So, yes, the latest resistance counter offensive is underway, in the form of the trial, which began today.

Here are a couple articles on the first day of the trial:

Trial Opens in Challeng to Colorado Gun Laws

Trial opens in challenge to Colorado gun laws
By Denver Post staff and wire reports
Posted: 03/31/2014 01:54:38 PM MDT92 comments | Updated: about 8 hours ago

Colorado attorneys defended the state's new gun restrictions Monday against a lawsuit to overturn them, saying the laws balance Second Amendment rights and public-safety concerns.

But attorney Richard Westfall, who is representing gun-rights advocates, says the laws are based on emotion rather than data that prove they are effective. He argues that the laws violate the Second Amendment.

The comments came Monday in Denver federal court during opening arguments of a two-week trial. The laws in question, which took effect last July 1, limit the size of ammunition magazines to 15 rounds and expand background checks to firearm sales online and private sellers.

Deputy Attorney General Matthew Grove noted the laws were a response to mass shootings at a suburban Denver movie theater and Connecticut's Sandy Hook Elementary School.

The first witness of the day was Robert Hewson, executive director of Nonprofit Colorado Youth Outdoors, which conducts outdoors programs including trap shooting and gun safety for parents, mentors and teens.

The organization occasionally transfers guns to users of its programs so they can participate in guided hunting trips or for other reasons outside its property, Hewson said.

The law, which requires background checks on those involved in gun loans that last longer than 72 hours, put the organization's program in jeopardy, Hewson said.

Exemptions in the law allow a person to give a gun to any family member without undergoing a background check and allow people to loan a gun to a friend for up to 72 hours, or let someone use their gun while at a shooting range or while hunting.

But CYO depends on the Maverick Shoot, a yearly shooting fundraising competition that brings in more than half of its $400,000 budget, Hewson said.

The organization doesn't have enough guns for all the participants and must borrow some. Typically, the nonprofit gets the weapons from other organizations a week or so before the May event so those conducting it have time to make sure the guns are clean and safe.

They take another week or so after three-day event to assure they are returned in good condition, Hewson said.

The 72-hour limit on transferring the guns without a background check puts the organization in a bad spot, he added. "It is a very threatening and challenging position we are in," he said.

Tom McGhee: 303-954-1671, tmcghee@denverpost.com or twitter.com/dpmcghee

================================================

Challenge to Colorado gun laws begins in federal court

Challenge to Colorado gun laws begins in federal court
By Megan Schrader Updated: March 31, 2014 at 6:17 pm • Published: March 31, 2014 | 3:35 pm

DENVER - A constitutional challenge of Colorado's new gun laws began in U.S. District Court Monday and will stretch for two weeks as Second Amendment advocates try to eliminate magazine limits and universal background checks.

Deputy Attorney General Matthew Grove said the new laws are critical to the state's public safety, noting that they were passed in response to mass shootings that occurred in 2012, one in an Aurora movie theater and another in a Connecticut elementary school.

Lawmakers passed five gun laws during the 2013 legislative sessions and the ensuing political battle over those laws has led to recall elections and repeal efforts. A group of gun sellers and manufacturers, and a number of county sheriffs filed the lawsuit in May.

Attorney Richard Westfall, who is representing the plaintiffs said the new requirements for background checks on all gun sales and transfers and the ban on magazines that hold more than 15 rounds of ammunition are burdensome and restrict the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

U.S. District Court of Colorado Chief Judge Marcia Krieger is presiding over the case and could rule once the hearing concludes but may take time to consider the evidence presented as well.

The first witness called was Bob Hewson, executive director of Colorado Youth Outdoors, who testified that it was unclear how House Bill 1229 - the universal background check law - applied to firearms owned by the non-profit organization.

He said his program was in limbo when it came to transferring firearms between regional offices, to borrowing firearms for fundraising events such as the annual Maverick fundraiser shoot or loaning guns to individuals for use outside of the Colorado Youth Outdoors programs.

But on cross-examination Hewson said the Maverick event would go on as planned in 2014 despite the new law.

The law includes a number of exemptions for the mandatory background check, including temporary transfers at shooting ranges, shooting competitions, while hunting or any loan of a firearm to a family member. Additionally a gun can be loaned to anyone for up to 72 hours for any reason.

Hewson said the only exemption that applied to his organization was the 72-hour loan, which put time restrictions on when they loan guns to individuals or within their organization from one branch to another. Additionally, he said the law says any transfer made under the 72-hour exception would make Colorado Youth Outdoors liable for damages caused by unlawful use of the weapon; a risk he said was too burdensome.

Hewson, after a long pause and the judge reminding him that he could invoke his Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate himself, said that since the law took effect in July 2013 his organization has not loaned out firearms to individuals for longer than 72 hours.

He did say the organization has since changed its waiver form for loaning out firearms to include a question about whether the recipient of the gun is a felon.

Hewson did invoke the Fifth Amendment to not answer the question of whether his organization had attempted to have a background check run on individuals for purposes of loaning out a gun for longer than 72 hours.

It's expected that the plaintiff will bring several witnesses to testify about how the background check requirement is burdensome while the defense will try to show how the law works to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and is a reasonable restriction under the Second Amendment.

Contact Megan Schrader

719-286-0644

Twitter: @CapitolSchrader

I found the link to the article below on Larimer County Sheriff Justin Smith's FB page.

Westword is a liberal rag but as Sheriff Smith points out it is one of the most comprehensive stories on the case that you'll find.

Colorado gun-control laws go on trial

quote:

Originally posted by colomtn:
I found the link to the article below on Larimer County Sheriff Justin Smith's FB page.

Westword is a liberal rag but as Sheriff Smith points out it is one of the most comprehensive stories on the case that you'll find.

Colorado gun-control laws go on trial

Colomtn, I've never heard of Denver Westword, but I agree with you that the article was fairly comprehensive. Thanks for the link.

I was hoping to find a source for day to day coverage of the trial... but so far, no luck. There is an outside chance that I might be able to attend one or two days of the trial next week.

I moved to Colorado about 6 months ago and hope we get this fixed. Does any body have any guesses how this is actually going to turn out?

Well, so far I haven't been able to attend the trial and it doesn't look like I will be able to unless it is extended.

I'm a bit annoyed & dismayed that the trial hasn't gotten more (any?) coverage. I didn't expect it to be the lead story in the evening news or the headline story in local papers, but I thought it would get at least some page 3 type coverage.

Perhaps it has and I just haven't found a blog or source???

Anyone have any intel on this battle?

I haven't heard or seen anything lately. The local media aren't covering it, it seems. I did a quick search, and came up with this:

http://www.courthousenews.com/2014/04/04/66774.htm

That's really about it. You would think there would be more coverage, or not

quote:

Originally posted by bigpond73:
I haven't heard or seen anything lately. The local media aren't covering it, it seems. I did a quick search, and came up with this:

http://www.courthousenews.com/2014/04/04/66774.htm

That's really about it. You would think there would be more coverage, or not

Hey, alright, well that gives us something to go on for Day 4.

I wasn't familiar with your source, but in checking it there is a second story on Day 8 of the trial.

Expert Witnesses at Odds in Gun-Control Trial

Thursday, April 10, 2014Last Update: 5:06 AM PT

Expert Witnesses at Odds in Gun-Control Trial
By MEGAN GALLEGOS

DENVER (CN) - An economist testified Wednesday that an expert witness for plaintiffs in the Colorado gun-control trial "deliberately ignored" some data and used only instances that would not "contradict his assertion."
Wednesday was day eight in the federal bench trial presided over by USDC Chief Judge, Marcia Krieger.
Thirty-one plaintiffs claim that three state gun laws signed into law in 2013 are unconstitutional. They include a ban on magazines bigger than 15 rounds, regulations on private transfers and the introduction of universal background checks.
Defense attorney Matthew Grove called University of Colorado at Boulder Professor Jeffrey Zax to the witness stand early Wednesday morning. Zax is an economist and referees for thesis presentations in social sciences.
Zax said he believes the ban on high-capacity magazines will reduce the risk to civilians and would reduce the carnage from mass shootings.
"Large capacity magazines are a mass murderer's weapon of choice. If we deny them their weapon of choice, they will be less effective to achieve their goals," Zax said.
Grove asked Zax what he thought about plaintiffs' witness, Gary Kleck, and his testimony on his studies in gun violence and firearm regulations in the first week of the trial.
Zax said he watched Kleck's testimony and believed Kleck's findings were incorrect.
"Are there any problems with Kleck's studies?" Grove asked.
"Well, there are many," Zax responded.
Zax told the court that Kleck's studies were biased.
"He had deliberately ignored several [shooting] instances. He ignored instances that would contradict his assertion," Zax said.
Zax had another problem with Kleck's testimony. Kleck said he found high-capacity magazines beneficial because they could help a person defend himself from "multiple assailants."
Zax disagreed, saying data show that a person who fires a gun for self-defense does not use more than 15 rounds.
"Apart from mass shootings, the objective is never to exhaust a magazine. No one expects people to go into a situation to exhaust their magazine," Zax said.
During cross-examination, an attorney for the plaintiff asked Zax about his expertise on firearms.
Zax made it clear he has no expertise on the mechanics of a firearm nor does he have knowledge on how fast parts on a firearm can wear out. Zax said he has not read the rules and regulations that govern gun possession in Colorado.
The defense is expected to rest today.

Seems a little odd to me that the Defense's attorney called an economist to testify on their behalf. Even more so, with the economist admitting that he knows nothing about guns. Smacks of, well, desperation.

Thanks, didn't see that earlier. Still nothing by the MSM.

To get links to all the articles posted on Courthouse News click on "Back Issues" then under keyword type in "Colorado's gun control"

So how long do we have to wait before we find out how this ends and anybody have predictions?

Must be in secret, harder than hell to get any useful info about this trial.

quote:

Originally posted by Sweden:
Must be in secret, harder than hell to get any useful info about this trial.

Agreed, got this from Justin Smith's (Sheriff of Larimer Cty) facebook page;

FYI - The Sheriffs' lawsuit against the Governor wrapped up yesterday. We were satisfied with how the presentation of evidence went.

The case is in the hands of Judge Krieger and we are told to expect a ruling sometime in the next 6 months. We believe that we effectively made the best case possible to reinstate the rights of law abiding Coloradans.

Also got this from couthouse news

Closing Arguments in Gun-Control Trial

Thanks for all the updates everyone. Guess this is going to be a "hurry up and wait" type of case.

quote:

Originally posted by bigpond73:
Thanks for all the updates everyone. Guess this is going to be a "hurry up and wait" type of case.

Hopefully all this will be moot come November when Colorado returns to being a red state and these laws will be overturned by the legislature.

Colomtn, thanks for the closing arguments link. I'm going to take the liberty of posting the text here.

Closing Arguments in Gun-Control Trial

Friday, April 11, 2014Last Update: 9:10 AM PT

Closing Arguments in Gun-Control Trial
By MEGAN GALLEGOS

DENVER (CN) - Chief U.S. District Judge Marcia Krieger put attorneys to the test Thursday during closing arguments in the trial challenging the constitutionality of Colorado gun control laws.
Thirty-one plaintiffs claim that three state gun laws signed into law in 2013 are unconstitutional. The laws include a ban on magazines that hold more than 15 rounds, regulations on private transfers and universal background checks.
Plaintiffs' counsel started his closing argument by saying the laws convert firearms "into an ashtray that you can throw."
Krieger interrupted to say she did not care what the plaintiffs felt about the laws, she wanted to know what evidence they had to make a constitutional argument.
"Can you show me where those amendments were directly addressed?" Krieger asked in the middle of attorney Richard Westfall's arguments.
Krieger asked why plaintiffs, especially farmers, stated that background check regulations posed a burden.
Westfall said that the law requires someone to get a background check every time he or she is given a gun.
"That theory is what I have a question about," Krieger said. "Once it is done, isn't that sufficient?"
"The law was written with such strictness because it assumes that Joe Hand and Farmer Brown will have to go down every four to five days for a background check," Westfall responded.
Krieger asked whether entities have Second Amendment rights.
"How do we collectively hold or fire a firearm? That requires dexterity of an individual's hand," she said.
"I would suggest that that kind of literalism is excessive," plaintiffs' attorney David Kopel said.
Krieger asked defense attorney Matthew Grove about limits on magazine size and how it relates to the Constitution.
"Do you concede that a magazine is considered an arm in the scope of the Second Amendment?" Krieger said.
"Virtually all guns can function without a high capacity magazine," Grove responded.
"But would you concede that for semi-automatic firearms, a magazine is part of the gun and therefore an arm?"
"Yes, I would concede that," Grove replied.
In closing, plaintiffs' counsel said that Krieger's job was to provide a check on the Legislature.
The judge fired back: "No, sir! My role on this court is whether the statutes are constitutional."
Krieger said she will issue a written opinion. She did not indicate when that will be.

Reading a few quotes without hearing the totality of statements made during the trial is hardly an accurate way of assessing the mood of the court, especially without the context of tone and facial expressions... but, without better intel, here are a few of my thoughts:

Judge Krieger seemed to make critical comments to both the Plaintiff's and Defense's attorneys, but her quoted comment to Westfall struck me as somewhat hostile.

The judge's question as to whether entities had 2nd Amendment rights struck me as coming from the same vein as do corporations have the right to free speech, possibly indicating her liberal bent.

Lastly, and again I don't pretend to know what Westfall's strategy was, but his final comment to the judge seemed poorly chosen, and antagonistic.

Time will tell... in the mean time I guess we have no choice but to wait for the verdict... and gear up for the mid-term elections later this year.

Well, a bit belated, but here is an article that was written while the trial was still going on.

Firearms sellers testify about background check burdens, call new laws unconstitutional

Firearms sellers testify about background check burdens, call new laws unconstitutional

By Megan Schrader Updated: April 5, 2014 at 8:57 pm • Published: April 5, 2014 | 8:50 pm

DENVER - The first week of a trial about two new Colorado gun laws concluded Friday with the plaintiff resting and the state calling the first two witnesses from the Colorado Bureau of Investigation.

At issue is whether two provisions in Colorado's new gun laws - the ban on high-capacity magazines and the requirement for gun sellers to perform background on customers - are outside the Second Amendment's realm of "reasonable restrictions."

The state says that the new laws are not only reasonable restrictions but important public safety measures.

James Spoden, administrator for CBI's background check department, testified Friday about the number of background checks that are conducted for the private transfer of firearms every year.

Spoden said the licensed federal firearm dealers who oppose the laws and are party to the lawsuit have conducted just over 100 background checks on gun transfers since the new law took effect.

However, that figure likely includes a significant number of background checks for private transfers at gun shows, as well as transferred occurred across state lines.

Both are types of background checks that were required prior to the new laws.

Gun sellers have frequently complained that licensed firearm dealers avoid the background checks because they cost much more than the $10 fee they're allowed to charge buyers, who already have a $10 background check fee tacked onto gun prices.

Spoden said he has seen signs at gun shows offering free private-transfer background checks.

During cross examination, Spoden said it appeared background-checks numbers for private transfers had actually declined compared to peak gun-sale seasons prior to the new laws.

Colorado Bureau of Investigation Director Ron Sloan is scheduled to testify Monday when the trial resumes.

U.S. District Court of Colorado Chief Judge Marcia S. Krieger is presiding over the case, which is expected to last through Friday.

Krieger will likely take time to consider the evidence before issuing a written decision.

-

Contact Megan Schrader

719-286-0644

Twitter: @CaptiolSchrader