[BoulderCouncilHotline] Comments on firearm regualtions and alternative proposals in preparation for tonights meeting

[Grano, Jill]

Dear Colleagues and Members of the Public,


There have been many Hotline posts leading up to tonight's discussion about firearm weapons regulations.  My thoughts are below.


First I would like to thank Tom Carr for his hard work and time commitment on this.  I would also like to thank my colleagues on Council for the various perspectives they have brought, and for the significant research and time they have put into this.  Finally, thank you to the community members who have weighed in, met with many of us, or participated in any way.


I still support a ban on assault weapons, a reduction in the magazine limits, and a ban on all multi-burst trigger activators.  I have outlined my positions in more detail below in response to positions and proposal's that others have put forward.  (Below this Hotline post I have copied and pasted the hotline posts from others that I have referenced in this message.)


 RE: Sam's thoughts from his Hotline Post:


I am in support of all 10 of Sam's positions and requests.


Additionally, with regard to exemptions in the proposed ordinance:

  1.  I do not support the exemptions for former law enforcement and military proposed in 5-8-25. I ask that 5-8-25 be scratched altogether.
  2.  I would also like to have a discussion about 5-8-10 (3), exemptions for competitive shooters.  While I understand why this was added, I do not support it as written.  I would support an exemption which allowed competitive clubs to own the weapons defined in this ordinance and then they could "check out" those weapons to competitive shooters during practice or competition, but I do not support a blanket exemption for all competitive shooters to own the weapons defined in their own homes.


RE: Mirabai's Alternative Proposal:


I support raising the minimum age of gun ownership to 21.  As our Mayor recognized in the attached amendment, we live in a City with a high concentration of students. We have heard from concerned parents of CU students about students owning guns.  One parent who emailed us described that the boys who live just below his daughter have guns and empty bottles of booze ("19 year olds with empty bottles of booze and AR-15's! I understand Boulder has the toughest Renter Agreements anywhere - you can't have a puppy or a kitten, but you can have an AR-15!").


Furthermore, we know that a number of mass shooters have had Schizophrenia, which often develops in men between ages 16 and 25 (http://www.schizophrenia.com/szfacts.htm#).  For these reasons and many more, I support Mirabai's proposal that the minimum age of gun ownership in Boulder be raised to 21.


RE: Mary's Alternative Proposal:


Points 1 & 3 are already being addressed in this ordinance.  With regard to #1 (Ban high-capacity magazines) I initially proposed no more than 10 rounds (a reduction from the State maximum of 15). I still support a magazine limit of no more than 10 rounds for center-fire semi-automatic rifles, however, as stated above, I agree with Sam that 15 rounds is an acceptable limit for guns with a pistol handgrip.  Of course, I still support banning bump-stocks and all multi-burst trigger activators.


Points 2 & 4 are excellent, but not something that we can decide at the local level.  Both of these points must de decided by the State.




Thank you again.  I look forward to tonight's discussion.


Jill Adler Grano

Schizophrenia Facts and Statistics<http://www.schizophrenia.com/szfacts.htm#>
www.schizophrenia.com
Schizophrenia Information > Facts: Schizophrenia Facts and Statistics: Schizophrenia is a serious disorder of the mind and brain but it is also highly treatable.




Jill Adler Grano

Boulder City Council

granoj at bouldercolorado.gov

303-917-6810


"The trouble is that once you see it, you can't unsee it. And once you've seen it, keeping quiet, saying nothing, becomes as political an act as speaking out. There's no innocence. Either way, you're accountable."
-Arundhati Roy


SAM'S HOTLINE POST THAT I REFERENCED

Fellow Council Members and HOTLINE followers,

As we approach our second reading of the assault weapon regulations, I  wanted to put out some thoughts so that staff can prepare responses in advance of our meeting Tuesday.  I want to compliment Tom Carr and other City staff who have compiled a very clear set of options for us to consider.  Here are some of my thoughts:


  1.  PDF page 329, recitation B: I  suggest replacing ‘at schools’ with ‘in public spaces and at schools’
  2.  I support adding all of the recitations in Attachment B
  3.  PDF page 330, 5-8-2 (a) add ‘center-fire’ before ‘rifles’   This, in my opinion, removes the need for the exemption on PDF page 331 regarding .22 caliber rifle magazines.  Many .22 target shooting, plinking, and small-game rifles and pistols are rim-fire.
  4.  PDF page 330, 5-8-2 (a) here or elsewhere define ‘pistol grip’ rigorously.  I support the definition in  Attachment C, and remind Council of the document from the California Office of the Attorney General (attached to this email) for further administrative clarification.
  5.  I am NOT in support of 5-8-25 (a) 4 in Attachment D for the exemption of CCW permit holders from this regulation.
  6.  Regarding #5 above, I would like either City staff or a member of the public to brief Council on the state of CCW permitting and the maintenance, validation, and revocation practices regarding those permits under current state law.
  7.  I support limiting magazine capacity for center-fire semi-automatic rifles to 10 rounds of ammunition capacity.
  8.  I support explicitly limiting pistol magazines to 15 rounds of ammunition capacity if the magazine in question is received in the pistol handgrip.  This comports with the state-level restrictions, and with common handgun manufacturing practice.  For pistol-style assault weapons in which the magazine attaches outside of the pistol grip, I would keep the limit at 10 rounds.
  9.  I would also like to have 5-8-21. - Open Carriage of Firearms in Carrying Cases Required modified as part of this package of reforms.  This is the law that was flagrantly broken during the April gun rights protest: ‘Any person carrying a firearm off of the person's property or outside of the person's business or vehicle shall carry the firearm in a carrying case. The carrying case must be recognizable as a gun carrying case by a reasonable person. A plain-shaped case must be clearly marked to be deemed recognizable under this standard. The carrying case must be openly carried and must not be concealed on or about the person. This section shall not apply to individuals who have a permit to carry a concealed weapon issued pursuant to state law.’  I would like the final sentence of the prior passage to explicitly allow only pistols (and not assault weapons or rifles) to be exempted from the carrying case requirement.
  10. I would finally like to remind all of us of the following Boulder ordinance: 5-8-15. - Deadly Weapons in City Buildings Prohibited.  (a)No person, other than a peace officer, shall carry, bring or possess a deadly weapon in the city council chambers while the council is in session.  (b)No person, other than a peace officer, shall carry, bring or possess a deadly weapon in any public building owned by the city and open to the public if the city manager has posted a sign to that effect at every public entrance to the building. Ordinance No. 7299 (2003)

For our Tuesday meeting, I would suggest that posting signs per the requirements of 5-8-15 (b) would be quite prudent to protect the safety of meeting attendees.  This is redundant to the requirements of 5-8-15 (a), but would provide additional clarity of the applicable laws.  I would suggest that we explicitly ban all firearms from Council chambers for public safety purposes, as well as having our broader public not fear intimidation via firearms. We try and limit silencing of our residents by rules that do not allow clapping or verbal outbursts, and should do the same regarding physical threats.

All the best,

Sam Weaver
Member of Boulder City Council
weavers at bouldercolorado.gov<mailto:weavers at bouldercolorado.gov>
Phone: 303-416-6130



MIRABAI'S HOTLINE POST THAT I REFERENCED


To the public and my fellow council members,

I sincerely want to reduce gun violence. The complex conversations the last few weeks have however, lead me to believe the original proposed ordinance will be ineffective while creating too much downside for our community and thousands of good people within it. The original ordinance will reduce fear of gun violence, but not much else. To me this is not acceptable if the goal is truly to reduce gun violence.

There is an alternative proposal that is making the rounds. It not only has strong support from the pro-rights and gun communities, but from many on the gun control side and moderates as well.

Myself and other council members are leaning towards this proposed alternative over the original.

This proposal was put together by a local resident, John Ramey. He has past success in figuring out large and tricky governing problems, and also happens to be a thought leader in the modern gun control debate and often acts as a bridge between the two sides.

Please see below.

Kind regards,
Mirabai Nagle
Boulder City Council

Nico Dattels, President of Flatiron Sights, the local liberal gun club, shares:

“The alternative proposal has my full, enthusiastic support. It dares to try something innovative, rather than the old regressive paradigm of an outright ban. Rather, it takes a uniquely progressive, inclusive approach to solving the gun violence problem in our communities. I believe this option has found that middle ground and both sides are fairly represented.

As a liberal gun owner, I can assert that this model does the best job of reducing violence while protecting our rights, and many of my fellow members feel the same way. It attacks the cause of the problem, rather than the symptom, and promises to be more effective than anything that has come before it.

I want to express my admiration and respect to the people on either side of the issue working to find the better path. You have a great thing on your hands - one that breaks the mold. The fact that this alternative is being brought to the table makes me proud to be a member of this community.”

I have pasted the summary below. You can also access it on Google Docs through this link:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fXdCJi89EbLZ_mL1mM0YpSKmeB9w3o3eaXJ2oFWcJIE/<https://protect-us.mimecast.com/s/zHt2CG6WNKi1O9V2sQNEC0?domain=docs.google.com>

——

Local Leadership in Gun Control

By John Ramey

Summary: Compared to the ban ordinance originally proposed, there is a better path that actually reduces gun violence and brings the pro-rights and anti-gun community together, working as allies to reduce the real problems. Some of the surface points (like raising the bar to ownership for “assault weapons” and red flag laws) overlap with much of what the anti-gun groups want. Those are concessions the pro-rights community are willing to make if other points are included, such as government working to actually reduce the causes of gun violence and preventing slippery slopes against responsible gun owners. This can be a transformative model that influences the national conversation and shows Boulder’s true values (diversity, progressivism, pragmatism, etc). It’d be a shame to miss this opportunity.

The paradigm is broken

Like many complicated governing topics in the US, the gun violence debate has been fundamentally broken for decades. Which is why we’re still having the same old problems and same old debates.

All sides are to blame.

We collectively, and particularly our political leaders, have allowed the extremists on both sides to prevent any actual progress — and it’s getting worse.

It’s created an arms race of irrationality while nothing actually gets accomplished. This pushes each side further and further away from center, to the point they hardly understand each other anymore, won’t talk to each other, and assume each other’s motives are ignorant or malicious.

This creates the extreme and immovable views that derail this conversation.

We have a rare opportunity to fix it – locally and nationally

The majority of both sides, when they aren’t in “public posturing mode”, actually agree on a huge amount. The venn diagram overlap is >80%. And almost everyone sincerely wants to reduce gun violence and the number of bad people with guns.

Why are we ignoring this rare common ground?

For example, the not-so-secret secret among the pro-rights side is that the vast majority of gun owners support common-sense measures, such as closing gun show background check loopholes and requiring gun education. They are not as black and white on all the things they posture.

But they feel they have to posture that way because the ability to end up at reasonable outcomes is broken — it’s the equivalent of turning to isolationism when things get tough on the world stage. And when you give up a right, you don’t get it back, so people fight over every inch.

Similarly, the anti-gun side is not as black and white. Most recognize that the world has evil in it, people have the right to defend themselves, gun violence is not caused by guns, 99.9% of gun owners are responsible and moral neighbors/teachers/leaders, etc.

So, to be able to address gun violence, we need to understand and fix the reasons why this debate has become more about emotion, fear, posturing, and political points rather than reason and problem solving.

For example, if gun owners fear of slippery slopes (which is a valid fear) was alleviated, they would quickly support many rational measures instead of the black-and-white approach.

Conversely, if the anti-gun crowd’s fear of a wild-west NRA utopia was alleviated, and they hear the pro-gun side promote the fact that there are some people who we all agree just shouldn’t have assault weapons, then it’s possible to have a reasonable conversation about where to draw the line while respecting the individual rights of the 99.99% of gun owners who are innocent.

But the current approach by Boulder City Council is just more of the same. Not only is the ordinance fundamentally flawed for dozens of reasons — not the least of which is it will do absolutely nothing to prevent gun violence — the way the conversation has come together is antithetical to all the values Boulder claims to hold dear, such as intelligence, inclusion, diversity, and progressive pragmatism.

Boulder can set the example, not just for Colorado, but for the national conversation. It will take a city like Boulder — a city that historically had the guts to be progressive and practical enough to see that things like the War on Drugs were similarly-worthless security theater politics.

Imagine the reasonable majority of both sides of this debate working together to enact common-sense and effective measures. That’s extremely powerful, both on merit and narrative.

These critical moments to create real change require a different plane of thinking. It’s often hard to recognize in the moment and requires an open and courageous mind on all sides.

Spirit of this approach

In all forms, we must be practical about what a local city ordinance can and can’t accomplish.

The real magic in this approach isn’t the specific skeletal points about ownership, bump stocks, and so on. It’s in the subjective meat wrapped around it, such as reducing the fear of slippery slopes.

The intent is to raise the bar to ownership for the highest tier of firearms by focusing on qualified good people vs. risky bad people, while reducing the reasons that lead people to gun violence / lifting them out of the risky group.

This avoids getting stuck in the muck about ever-evolving “stabilizing” features and product technology, fighting over exempted groups, legal gymnastics and inferred intent, and so on and so on.

This relies on the gun community and recognizes the incentives are aligned. Working with gun owners is such a good thing, I could argue it’s a prerequisite to solving gun problems. The gun community doesn’t want guns in the hands of crazy people — even if you ignore the moral reasons, it’s in their self interest, because they know each time violence occurs they lose a little bit of their rights.

Spiritually, we must balance legitimate arguments about freedom and constitutional rights (including the right to self defense) with the reality of recent legal decisions and community will. We must treat criminals as criminals and treat law-abiding citizens as such. And we must codify into law and precedent whatever we can to reduce future vitriol.

Ordinance (high level)

I’m confident all of the edge cases and minutiae can be solved. The important stuff:

Simple definition of “assault weapon”: Semi-automatic centerfire rifle with detachable magazine and pistol grip, or a semi-auto pistol with a detachable magazine outside of the pistol grip.

  *   For context, that is a pretty strict/broad definition, but we avoid most of the futile mechanical engineering cat and mouse legalese.

To legally possess an AW:

You must be over 21 (raised from 18) to own/possess.

  *   Under 21 still able to fire these weapons when accompanied by a qualified adult (like a parent taking their kid to the range).
  *   18-21 active duty mil / ROTC and those on competitive shooter teams (CU shooting club) are allowed to possess under the rest of this ordinance.

In addition to normal background checks and laws, you must pass a level of training / education by checking one of these boxes:

  *   Pass a hunter / shooter education course with certificate from a verified instructor. (This mechanism is already in place and could be a huge win for all sides.)
  *   CCW holder, which requires a safety course certificate and Sheriff approval. Sheriffs and educators already have the right to decline sketchy people.
  *   NFA holder, which means you’ve passed the 6-12 month background check with the ATF.
  *   FFL holder, which means the ATF has cleared you to be a dealer / someone who conducts background checks.
  *   Part of a bonafide shooting club or team.
  *   Active or retired law enforcement, military, licensed security, etc.

There would be ordinance language about what the spirit of proper education is, to avoid future interpretation battles and handle future changes.

Give people a 6 month window upon ordinance passage to comply.

After that, new residents have a 3 month window to comply on imported AWs.

  *   This will need to accommodate long-process qualifications, like the ATF process that takes 6-12 months. So someone needs to start the qualification within 3 months, but it may take 3 months more to finish.

Red flag: Ideally this happens at a state level (which looks almost certain), but if not… If through due process you are found to have a statistically likely risk of gun violence, your weapon rights are suspended for 6 months or until clearance, whichever is first.

  *   On the wrong end of a domestic violence temporary restraining order? Lose your AWs.
  *   Police find probable cause that you might shoot up a school? Lose your AWs.
  *   There is a lot to hammer out on this, which is feasible, but needs to be done to avoid subjective witch hunts and legal greyness. This isn’t Minority Report.
  *   If passes at state/fed level (likely), automatically revert the local clause and piggyback going forward.

Burden of proof:

No preemptive registration / database of people who haven’t committed a gun crime or their weapons.

  *   People who choose to meet the qualified person threshold through CCW, ATF, FFL etc obviously end up in those respective databases, and that’s fine.
  *   A clause that cements, to the legal extent possible, that there will never be such a database or registration mechanism.

This model creates no extra logistical burden to Boulder. All of the “qualified person” options have their own verifiable ID cards, certificates, databases, etc. Boulder won’t have to deal with IT, data breaches and hackers, and so on.

  *   e.g. Dept of Wildlife gun safety instructors are already able to be verified, so while a citizen doesn’t “register” their graduation from a safety course, the certificate they show as proof later can be verified.
  *   e.g. ATF has a 24/7 hotline number where law enforcement can call to verify a gun holders clearance.

Use a challenge-response model, where law enforcement can pursue verification upon reasonable suspicion.

  *   e.g. BPD pulls over a driver, sees an AR-15 + they are a Boulder resident, and can challenge that person to prove their legal possession.
  *   e.g. Forest Service spots someone shooting irresponsibly on public land, challenges for legal proof.

New rifles bought in the city, after ordinance, by city residents: The local FFL (dealers like Gun Sport and Bison Tactical) can notify customers of legal regulations.

Extras:

Bump stocks are banned.

Magazine regulations are left to the state.

Instead of weak penalties on noncompliance in the original “ban” ordinance, by flipping it around and punishing criminals, go ahead and make the punishment severe. Possess an AW when you shouldn’t? You get more than a wrist slap.

  *   Perhaps there’s a warning system for new residents, etc. It depends on how well Boulder promotes the regulations. The gun clubs/stores will actively promote it.

A moratorium on any local regulations that are materially more restrictive for 20 years. This ordinance sunsets after 20 years if there is not at least a meaningful reduction in gun violence in the city.

  *   Meaningful would be defined as a standard deviation metric, or something similar. Essentially, any reduction that’s statistically relevant.
  *   The moratorium can end if there is a mass shooting event in Boulder.
  *   Want to shorten the moratorium? Then shorten the sunset. Tie them together and rely on data/results.

Boulder uses the tools available to publicly pressure the state/fed gov to address a number of low-hanging-fruit and facepalm-obvious issues, such as:

  *   Closing background check loopholes, like the “gun show loophole”.
  *   Fixing IT and bureaucracies so that people who have been red flagged, felons, no fly list, etc actually end up in the proper databases.

Show that Boulder is progressive enough to know why gun violence happens and is taking action to address it:

  *   Wherever feasible, take local action to reduce what causes gun violence: health, poverty, bullying, social disconnection, extremism, etc.
  *   Some of this is publicity / thought leadership. Tell the world Boulder recognizes solving gun violence requires much more than just banning good people from weapons, we need to do proper research on gun violence, etc.
  *   However possible, push state/fed levels to recognize and take action on the same.

Education

We know gun education is one of the best ways to reduce gun casualties. Primarily because more education directly reduces accidents.

Another major reason is that educators act as an organic gatekeeper against bad people. Studies show that gun educators, mentors, and volunteers have a huge impact both on reducing the number of risky owners, and at directly mentoring at-risk people into becoming not at risk. (A day at the range with a mentor is a great Big Brother kind of thing.)

Established orgs, like the CO Dept of Wildlife, run public education courses. The NRA is great at gun education and runs many of the education programs in the US. Their members are mostly good people who care about gun safety and putting guns in the hands of other good people. The lobbying and militant messaging grew over time as a result of broken political processes, but it’s not their core.

Leverage that. Leverage the people who know a lot more about guns and gun safety than you do, who volunteer their time to teach new people, and who have no qualms about denying a certificate to someone who seems sketchy.

For example, local gun education teachers have a solid history of referring questionable people to Boulder law enforcement.

The NRA and similar groups will support this. They want to increase education, both for moral / safety reasons and because it brings in revenue to support shooting clubs. Plus it builds political bridges instead of creating political combatants.

Narrative and promotion

Through resolutions, public releases, and press campaigns, Boulder essentially says:

“We want to reduce gun violence, but we want to do it right. That means closing loopholes, banning obvious hacks like bump stocks, fixing the bureaucracy, and raising the bar to responsible ownership for the weapons most able to kill large numbers of people.

“But we recognize that blanket bans are legally questionable and ineffective. We recognize that many other preventable risks kill far more people than firearms, especially assault weapons. We recognize that the vast majority of gun owners are responsible citizens who don’t need a validated ‘reason’ to own these weapons.

“Most importantly, we recognize that actually reducing gun violence will only happen when we work together — instead of vilifying each other — to reduce the reasons for gun violence, such as lack of training, healthcare ranked last in the developed world, income disparity and an eroding middle class, and culture.”



MARY's HOTLINE POST THAT I REFERENCED:

Colleagues,

Below is an alternative approach. Throughout the last month, as I read through our copious emails on this issue, I tracked substantive recommendations from community members (on both sides) to see where there were areas of agreement.

It turns out that someone had already figured out where the areas of agreement lie.

I am putting this out there as an alternative approach, one that accomplishes what the current proposal purports to plus violence associated with handguns.

These items could be adapted to a local ordinance should Council choose to do so.


1. Ban high-capacity magazines. What kills kids the fastest are the 30-, 50-, 100-round magazines that are only designed for mass slaughter, not for recreation or self-defense.

2. Implement universal background checks for every gun purchase, everywhere. We must do this, not just at stores but at gun shows and online and out of the back of a pickup truck so that no one can buy a gun in America without a background check. Period.

3. Ban bump stocks. There is no valid recreational or self-defense use for a bump stock. It turns a regular gun into a machine gun and this does not have a place on American streets.

4. Create gun violence restraining orders (GVROs). GVROs would keep guns out of the hands of those who are a threat to themselves or others. Without harming due process, they would allow a family member, close relative, teacher or law enforcement officer to identify someone who is mentally ill or making verified threats and ensure they do not have access to guns until that threat is resolved.

  *   Those Who Commit Domestic Violence
  *   Those Who Commit Hate Crimes
  *   Individuals at Risk of Harming Themselves or Others

These 4 simple steps would have been enough to stop the mass shootings in Parkland, Las Vegas, Aurora, Orlando, and Newtown.*

Mary Dolores Young
Boulder City Council
303-501-2439

*full disclosure: these steps and final statement were cut and pasted from a gubernatorial candidate’s website.

“We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.” ~Martin Luther King Jr.



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://list.ci.boulder.co.us/pipermail/bouldercouncilhotline/attachments/20180501/e72f607e/attachment.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Amendments requested at CAC-424.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 14063 bytes
Desc: Amendments requested at CAC-424.docx
Url : http://list.ci.boulder.co.us/pipermail/bouldercouncilhotline/attachments/20180501/e72f607e/attachment.bin