A new front opening in the attack on gun rights? What is a sunrise review? Speak up for sanity Colorado's energy policy.
A new front opening in the attack on gun rights?
I am subscribed to the Reload online newsletter about gun issues and I thought I would share one of their recent posts. It's linked first below.
The post is about a series of Democrat AG's who signed on to a letter calling for a crackdown on the sale of "military" ammunition on the civilian market. Just for 100% clarity, Colorado's Attorney General Phil Weiser did not sign on to the letter. The letter itself is linked second below if you'd like to read it.
This letter brings to mind a couple of issues as I see it.
First, I can't help but wonder if we will see here moves to try and regulate ammunition in Colorado (given that Giffords has given us superlative marks for our state's gun control efforts--we've a reputation to protect by golly). As I say above, Weiser didn't sign the letter, but I have heard unconfirmed rumors that he supports things like background checks to buy ammunition. I also have little doubt that other Progressive Dems in the Assembly will see this as uncharted territory they'd like to step into so as to claim they're doing yet more "commonsense" gun control.
And even if this is not a new legislative front in the attack on gun rights, the simple economics here can make moves to decrease the supply of ammunition a de facto restriction--one that comes by cutting the supply so much as to raise prices and severely hamper one's ability to actually use a gun.
You see, there seems to be a move afoot to try and curtail the operations of the firms that make ammunition for the military but sell their excess on the civilian market. This is, in fact, how many civilian-operated suppliers keep their doors open (and maintain military readiness): by selling their excess production. According to the blog post, this excess production isn't negligible--it could amount to 30% of the market.
Imagine what could happen to the market for anything if a supplier that was putting out 30% of the product ... stopped.
Second, I wanted to give you (courtesy of the blog post) some context on the issue of "military" ammunition sales in the civilian market should you hear the argument made as you're out and about.
Outside of certain specialized type of ammunition, a bullet is a bullet. It might fit a variety of guns, but it's brass, lead and powder shaped to fit barrels that civilians have and the same-sized barrels the military has. Whether it comes from a factory that makes bullets that are used by the military or not, there's no functional difference.
It would be equivalent to buying a truck battery from a company that also sells them to the military. It's the same battery and the one you buy as a civilian goes in your truck while the ones that go to the military go in military trucks.
The fact that these bullets were used in mass shootings has less to do with some dangerous policy than it does with the fact that this size of bullet goes in lots of guns and some of those guns were used by maniacs to do bad things. I bet you that if there was a battery supplier that supplied popular batteries to military and civilian vehicles we'd find that "military" batteries were being used in lots of civilian vehicle crashes and drunk-driving incidents.
You know the main difference (at least as I see it)? The main difference is that restricting these types of ammunition sales is easier to do via executive action than it would be for purely civilian businesses.
As for restricting civilian sales here in Colorado, I haven't yet got wind of any efforts. If I do, I'll share. If you do and don't see it here, please email and I'll put it up.
https://thereload.com/democratic-ags-call-for-crack-down-on-civilian-sale-of-popular-ar-15-ammunition/
https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/Lake%20City%20Multistate%20Letter-%20FINAL%5B1%5D.pdf
Related:
If you're like me you'll be hopping mad at reading the Aurora Sentinel's op ed on gun control.
I will resist the temptation to go point by point through here and discuss where the editorial staff smear law-abiding citizens and make great leaps regarding just how unfettered gun rights are.
Presented here in the interest of balance. Presented in the interest of learning how others see things.
Take your blood pressure meds and give it a read.
https://sentinelcolorado.com/opinion/editorial-colorado-can-prove-and-ensure-that-lives-are-more-valuable-than-guns/
What is a sunrise review?
I have covered sunset reviews for laws in the past, but I don't know that I've ever posted about a sunrise review. I aim to fix that now.
When I first started this page, I ended up asking lots of questions of then-minority leader Chris Holbert. He has since term-limited out and then moved out of both the Assembly and Colorado.
I was hugely grateful for his help because he helped me greatly in understanding the workings of the Assembly. He could always be counted on for that.
I have tried in his absence to do my share of posts on things like that and this will be one.
Do you know what a sunrise review is? If a group is asking for or proposing that the Assembly write new law to regulate a previously unregulated industry, a law from the 1980's requires what is called a "Sunrise Review" of the industry to help inform lawmakers.**
After the debacle involving the Penrose funeral home, probably sensing the writing on the wall and wanting a hand in the process rather than being told what they'll do, some funeral directors have been asking for state regulation of the industry. That spurred a Sunshine Review, see the link below.
The Sunshine Review establishes a series of steps the non partisan office must undertake in their study and I excerpted them out of the report into the attached screenshot.
Nice ideas, no?
More detail in the report if you are curious to read up on the study ... (ahem) ... undertaken.
**It is not binding or constraining on what lawmakers can do of course, and with our current crop of Democrats who show no compunctions about regulations I think it's probably at this point more a pro forma thing than a truly useful (or used) tool. We'll see I suppose.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vicVzRLrFvX1FGN4DsUpeBZNjZlpjJLs/view
Speak up for some sanity regarding energy policy ...
I'm coming at this one late, but better late than never.
I've written in the past about the risk this state runs regarding its energy policy: that we run the risk of asking more of our grid than it's capable of providing.
This is especially the case as our politicians push us thoughtlessly into 100% renewables, as they close down our current base generation (with nothing to replace it), and as they push to add a lot more demand to the grid by electrifying everything.
Without some feasible way to generate baseline power in the near term, I fear this risk will go from farfetched to reality.
We should be planning for baseline generation now and we can do this without more fossil fuels or greenhouse gases. If we decide to.
That's where the bill linked first comes in. It's effect is pretty simple, simple enough to put the summary here in its entirety:
"The statutory definition of 'clean energy' in current law determines which energy projects are eligible for clean energy project financing at the county and city and county level. The statutory definition of "clean energy resource" in current law determines which energy resources may be used by a qualifying retail utility to meet the 2050 clean energy target. The bill updates the statutory definitions to include nuclear energy."
This bill is up for committee tomorrow (Wednesday 11/24) so if you're going to act on advocating for it, now is the time.
In the meantime, I want to add yet another reason for pursuing this technology: it will help replace the lost jobs and tax base that closing coal-fired plants will cause. I put a link to a Colorado Politics op ed below to help flesh that out (and also to help you in case you were going to advocate by providing you some other context).
https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb24-039
https://www.coloradopolitics.com/opinion/help-pueblo-by-going-atomic-colorado-springs-gazette/article_9a9e6780-b633-11ee-b00b-2b47845f0184.html