An open letter to Senators Sullivan, Coleman, and Fenberg re a gun bill committee hearing on 3/8, and a couple of bills where Assembly Progressives ... (checks notes) intrude yet more into your life.
An open letter to Senate President Steve Fenberg, Senator Coleman, chair of the Senate State, Veterans, and Military Affairs Committee, and Senator Tom Sullivan re the committee hearing on 3/8
Hello to all,
My name is Cory Gaines. I am a resident of Logan County and a lifelong Coloradan. I'm writing today regarding an exchange between Senator Sullivan and a witness during the committee hearing on Wednesday 3/8 for SB23-168, titled "Gun Violence Victims' Access To Judicial System."
For everyone's reference, including those beyond the addressees listed, I am including a copy of the committee audio in the link below. The group of witnesses and exchange I reference begins at the 3:43:00 mark and Senator Sullivan's questioning begins at the 3:59:00 mark. I urge everyone to listen to the full testimony so you can have the entire context.
I write this open letter for several reasons. I want to call attention to Senator Sullivan's behavior. I want to call attention to Chairman Coleman's treatment of the witness. I want to ask President Fenberg if this is what he had in mind when he remarked in a Feb 22, 2023 article to CPR's Bente Birkland that "... he [President Fenberg] hopes whatever Democrats end up doing on gun policy this year advances public safety, instead of deepening cultural divides and making it even less likely Americans will ever agree on anything when it comes to this topic."
First let's discuss what Senator Sullivan said. If you listen to the link below, you will hear Senator Sullivan, nominally to question a witness regarding his testimony against the proposed bill, go into a lengthy and graphic description of what happened to his son and another patron during the Aurora Theater Shooting in July 2012. When Senator Sullivan does arrive at a question, it is "What is the profit margin on 4000 rounds of armor-piercing ammunition, I mean, what is the cost, what is the profit that you need to make to make that kind of a sale to a 24 year old at 3 o'clock in the morning, you didn't check his ID, no one backed up anything, the credit card hummed right through because it had over $50,000 in it, he spent over $36,000 online purchasing stuff so that he could complete his mission on July 20th, so, sir, do you know what is the profit on 4,000 rounds of armor-piercing ammunition?"
I cannot imagine what it would be like to lose a child. I also cannot imagine why Senator Sullivan chose to lash out at this particular group of witnesses. I have listened to this panel's testimony, in full, more than once. I hear nothing provocative in it--certainly nothing that would warrant a personal attack against anyone on the panel nor a smear against a larger group of people who had nothing whatsoever to do with his son's death. I am old enough and wise enough now to not speculate about either.
I will say a couple things about it, however. There is no loss, no tragedy that makes one's choices and behavior above reproach and above comment. There is also something inherently wrong with policymakers who choose to either institute or support a policy that will affect fellow American's rights, affect entire industries, and affect a way of life when it is based, as I believe Senator Sullivan's question above clearly shows, on a desire to lash out in anger over his loss. I urge everyone to go back and re-read what Senator Sullivan said. Having done that, I urge you to ask yourself what Senator Sullivan would think of you if you disagree with his policy aims.
Senator Coleman, after the exchange between Senator Sullivan and the first witness, you admonish only the witness "we will maintain decorum" when he understandably rises to Senator Sullivan's provocation. I am okay with you calling for decorum in a committee hearing, but I am curious why you chose not to remind Senator Sullivan of same. Is it because Senator Sullivan is from your party? Is it because he and you agree on policy? Is it because he is a fellow legislator?
The questions above are rhetorical. I don't personally care why you chose to only go after the witness, I do care that you chose only to go after a fellow citizen. Think, sir, about the message that your choice sends: all pigs are equal, it's just that some are more equal than others. A fellow legislator, a fellow Democrat can provoke, accuse, and berate Americans without fear of being called on his behavior. This is in no way appropriate or okay. If you have a rule, it should apply equally to all.
Lastly we come to the President Fenberg, nominally the head Democratic State Senator. Senator Fenberg, I haven't heard you comment on Senators Sullivan or Coleman in public and so I would like to offer you a chance to speak up. If you do indeed have concern (as you seem to indicate in the quoted article above) about furthering a cultural divide and reaching consensus (or at least compromise) on gun policy, I wonder what effect you think behavior and comments like that above will produce. I wonder what you see as your role in fostering an environment where we can discuss policy from a standpoint of mutual respect.
We share a nation. We share a state. We will not agree with each other on the way to solve problems. The key to learning to live with each other, however, is to have rules that apply equally to all. It is to have standards that apply equally to all. It is to consider the views of everyone with dignity and respect, not to lob baseless accusations and smears against people you disagree with.
If any of the three of you are unwilling or unable to abide by these simple rules, then I say you cannot wonder nor complain about the state of politics in this country. I say you cannot expect others to want to work with you but rather to rise to your challenge and meet you in the same spirit you offer.
Cory
https://sg001-harmony.sliq.net/00327/Harmony/en/PowerBrowser/PowerBrowserV2/20230308/-1/14229
Another case of Progressives in the Assembly intruding into the market and giving another unelected board sway over your life.
A pair of bills I just saw recently and am signed up to testify on. I encourage you to give some thought to following suit.
The first bill below, SB23-184, is about changes to the way that landlords would be allowed to choose tenants (among some legal/procedural additions and changes). I underlined the parts that I find troubling in blue in screenshot 1.
If you are a landlord or know one, my guess is that they share these concerns and that it's pretty obvious. I want to talk therefore in more general terms for those that aren't landlords. If you read the parts underlined in blue, what I hope you recognize (landlord or no) is the gigantic intrusion into the market that this bill represents. What happened to voluntary consent between BOTH parties independent of the government?
Second, I want to point you to the extra burden (and thus cost) this will place on those who rent. The recordkeeping required, the floating of a loan to a tenant, the legal defensive posture that must be maintained are all things that cost time and cost money. Do you think that those costs will not be passed on to tenants?
The second bill is yet another chance for an unelected board to tell us all what we need to do.
Many of the provisions of the bill don't concern me terribly; a lot of what I see in the summary strikes me as a state law preventing those that have an issue with EV chargers (say, a condo board) preventing their installation. I'm really not concerned with having EV chargers out and about, and I don't find them aesthetically unpleasing or something. If someone has an EV or wants one and wants a charger, go nuts.
What I do object to is what you see in screenshot 3. I object to yet another unelected board stepping in and REQUIRING them in new construction (in fact, not even allowing rules to be made that would prevent this except in cases of safety).
I have signed up to testify against both bills and encourage you to do the same and/or forward them along to people who would also be interested. Whether or not it affects you directly (the first bill would for me but the second would not), remember that bills like these are the thin end of the wedge and sooner or later they'll get around to something that does touch you.
Schedules for hearings are in the bill links below.
https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb23-184
https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb23-1233