Today's update form the statehouse 2/18

.8% (.008) is "excessive?

What, that would be about half a box of cartridges for most firearms?

Pabon, of Denver, pointed out that the legislature in 1994 passed a bill creating the InstaCheck program within CBI to perform background checks prior to firearms transfers. The program was financed by charging a $10 fee on customers.
The Republican sponsors of that bill included then-Senate president Tom Norton of Greeley, and one of the legislature's most well-known Second Amendment advocates, Rep. Ken Chlouber of Leadville.
"I'd like to say that we are trailblazers in this building and this is unprecedented, new territory ... infringing on the rights of Coloradans, but that is not the case," Pabon said facetiously.
"I don't remember the (Capitol) and the people of Colorado expounding that a poll tax of all poll taxes was being put on their Second Amendment rights."


Read more: Denver lawmaker notes GOP first charged for gun background checks - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ ... z2LMesMx5G

Something the Dog Said wrote: The CBI also has many more serious duties of which they have backlogs, including processing evidence of crime scenes, investigation of serious crimes in rural counties. The fee is not arbitrary, it is the cost as calculated by the CBI for doing gun background checks. It is the gun crowd that is complaining about the long wait times for background checks. If you are ok with the time for background checks as CBI prioritizes it's scarce resources, then I am fine with not instituting this fee. Remember, the Colorado Republicans voted to impose this same fee on gun purchasers back under Owen. It was done away with when gun purchases dropped.

The wait doesn't bother me. Keeping the govt out of more things and more taxes is more important to me.

Guns are not a right. You have no "right" under the 2nd Amendment to posses a gun. You do have the right for the government not to infringe upon your possession within limitations.

Yes...you do have a right to possess a gun, and yes, it is within limitations (felony)

It is pure bullsh** to claim that the legislation "bans" private firearm sales. It does nothing of the sort. It merely requires you to do a background check on the purchaser. The FFL does not intervene in the sale, they do not participate in the sale, they do not receive any portion of the proceeds of the sale. They merely perform the background check, record the transaction, retain a copy for ATF traces and provide you with a copy. They do not charge a sales tax, they do not inform the government.

It forces private deals between 2 individuals to add a 3rd (and I'd argue a govt 4th) into a private deal. It bans the private sale between 2 individuals. Just because you yell "BS" doesn't make your opinion any more valid.

By the way, if an FFL is required by law to process...but receives no revenue from this, the govt is putting a burden on these gun companies without compensation. Looks like another tax will have to be added to address that. You and I don't see eye to eye on what the govt knows...or will know. I believe when this passes it will very soon turn into a formal database. It will be the only way to track it. Right now if they need to trace a firearm, as you previously said, they contact the manufacturer, who knows who sold the gun...they go to that dealer and find out who bought it. With a private sale (thru an FFL with the new law) how would they track this gun without a govt database? They know I bought the gun....and sold it....do they come to me and ask? I tell them I sold it to Bob thru an ffl, and they then go try to find bob (who has since moved), who sold it to joe....etc etc etc.....What a nightmare to track down a gun. A database will easily be justified, and passed quickly.

As I said before, citizens do not have a right to possess guns under the Constitution. However, they do have a right to vote. Big difference.

Huh?? You read the 2nd amendment differently than I (and many others) do

Further, the Constitution specifically carves out voting as a singular right that may not be burdened. See the 24th amendment. No other "right" has been given that protection. If I want to assemble with my fellow citizens in Civic Center park to exercise my freedom of speech, I first have to obtain a permit, pay a fee, pay for insurance, security, bathrooms, etc. to the government. Why should the 2nd Amendment not be similarly burdened with minor fees rather than relying upon taxpayer subsidies. If I want to register my vehicle, as I am required to do if I want to use public roads, which I have already paid for, do I not have to pay fees for that privilege.

Actually, you don't. If you and 1 million people converged on civic enter park without a permit, I highly doubt you would be arrested on those grounds if you were peaceful, and the ACLU would back you, as would I. The permit process is for planned protests, in order to keep down conflicts. That is a whole 'nother issue.

You have to register a vehicle because there is no right to drive...it is a privilege, given to you by the govt...not by the constitution.

If the citizens of the US want gun owners to receive a public subsidy for their purchases, they can amend the Constitution to prohibit such fees. Otherwise, just as their are fees for exercising your 1st Amendment rights of freedom of assembly and freedom of speech, there can be fees for purchasing firearms when it is in the general welfare to do so. Likewise the requirement for background checks, even between private individuals.

Background checks are a choice by govt. They already tax the purchase. The CBI is funded to do this work. If nobody buys any guns, I would bet the govt wouldn't lay off one employee.

You see the govt as your friend. I don't. I see the govt slowly stealing away freedom for law abiding citizens. You like that...I don't. It is control...plain and simple.

The government is taking nothing away from you with this legislation. Instead it is doing it's job. Why do you believe that ensuring that felons are kept from evading the laws by using private sales to acquire firearms is a theft from law abiding citizens?

Since this background check isn't for the buyer but the general welfare of the population of Colorado, shouldn't the fee be paid out of the general fund?
Especially when Colorado is already earning 5% in sales tax on the sale and the feds are earning 10% on the transaction.

And if you fail the background check do you get a refund?

It could be, but it can also be charged to the consumer, since the background check fee is part of the sales transaction. Since this, according to a previous post, is a very rare transaction (you did state in a previous thread that private individuals rarely sell their firearms), then it should not be a big deal.

geeeez, even the campfire isn't safe anymore.

How to cheat the system? If they pass this background fee tax, buy five guns at a time, you will only have to pay for one background check and get four free background checks on your other firearms!

FH......excellent approach for many transactions.........most non gunshow , non shop transaction will simply be bartered....or swaped weapons.....universal registration is next (and fees to be sure) and that will impose a disincentive to pass the gun to someone else.

THE solution is to start recall petitions of ALL CO legislators that vote for this nonsense. A few recalls will be very effective

---

and that may be the GOV. A lot of political careers will be ruined for sure.