Remarks by the President on Reducing Gun Violence -- Denver, Colorado

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

Denver Police Academy
Denver, Colorado

3:19 P.M. MDT

THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you!  (Applause.)  Thank you so much.  Everybody, please have a seat.  Thank you.  Well, it is wonderful to be back in Colorado.  It is wonderful to be back in Denver.  I want to thank Chief White for that introduction.  You’ve got some outstanding elected officials who are here today, and I want to acknowledge them.  First of all, a wonderful governor -- John Hickenlooper is here.  (Applause.)  He’s here somewhere.  I know, because I just talked to him.  There he is.  Next to him an outstanding lieutenant governor, Joe Garcia.  (Applause.)  One of the finest young senators in the country -- Michael Bennet is here.  (Applause.)  Terrific members of the House of Representatives -- Ed Perlmutter -- (applause) -- and Dianna Degette.  (Applause.)  And your own mayor, Michael Hancock, is here.  (Applause.) 

I want to say thank you to the Denver Police for having me here, and more importantly, for the outstanding work that all of you do each and every day to serve your communities and protect your citizens. 

Before I came out here, I had a chance to sit down with some local law enforcement, Attorney General Holder, and some of the leaders I just mentioned, the wonderful mayor of Aurora who’s here, sportsmen, parents, loved ones of the victims of the shootings in Columbine and Aurora.  And we talked about what we can do to protect more of our citizens from gun violence. 

And from the beginning of this effort, we’ve wanted law enforcement front and center in shaping this discussion and the reforms that emerge from it -- because law enforcement lives this every day.  Law enforcement are the first to see the terrible consequences of any kind of violence, certainly gun violence -- lives lost, families broken, communities that are changed forever.  They’re very often in the line of fire.  The law enforcement knows what works and what doesn’t, and so we wanted that experience and that advice. 

And it was also important for us to hear from mayors like Steve Hogan, because he’s been on the front lines having to deal with these issues under incredibly sad circumstances.  And I’ve come to Denver today in particular because Colorado is proving a model of what’s possible.

It’s now been just over 100 days since the murder of 20 innocent children and six brave educators in Newtown, Connecticut -- an event that shocked this country and I think galvanized parents all across the country to say, we’ve got to do something more to protect our kids.  But consider this:  Over those 100 days or so, more than 100 times as many Americans have fallen victim to gun violence.  More than 2,000 of our fellow citizens, struck down, often because they were just going about their daily round.  They weren’t doing anything special.  Just doing what folks do every day -- shopping, going to school.  Every day that we wait to do something about it, even more of our fellow citizens are stolen from our lives by a bullet from a gun.

Now, the good news is Colorado has already chosen to do something about it.  (Applause.)  Look, this is a state that has suffered the tragedy of two of the worst mass shootings in our history -- 14 years ago this month in Columbine, and just last year in Aurora.  But this is also a state that treasures its Second Amendment rights -- the state of proud hunters and sportsmen.  And, by the way, the Governor wanted me to remind everybody that there is outstanding elk hunting here in Colorado.  (Laughter.)  There’s a strong tradition of gun ownership that’s handed down from generation to generation, and it’s part of the fabric of people’s lives.  And they treat gun ownership with reverence and respect.

And so I’m here because I believe there doesn't have to be a conflict in reconciling these realities.  There doesn’t have to be a conflict between protecting our citizens and protecting our Second Amendment rights.  I’ve got stacks of letters in my office from proud gun owners, whether they’re for sport, or protection, or collection, who tell me how deeply they cherish their rights, don’t want them infringed upon, but they still want us to do something to stop the epidemic of gun violence.  And I appreciate every one of those letters.  And I’ve learned from them. 

And I think that Colorado has shown that practical progress is possible thanks to the leadership of Governor Hickenlooper and some of the state legislators who are here today.  When I was talking to Steve, he mentioned that Aurora is very much a purple city.  It’s got a majority Republican city council; a majority of the state legislators are Democrat.  But they came together understanding that out of this tragedy there had to be something that made sense.  And so we’ve seen enacted tougher background checks that won’t infringe on the rights of responsible gun owners, but will help keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people.  (Applause.)

Now, in January, just a few weeks after Newtown, I put forward a series of common-sense proposals along the same lines as what’s passed here in Colorado, to reduce gun violence and keep our kids safe.  In my State of the Union address, I urged Congress to give these proposals a vote.  And, by the way, before we even asked for a vote, I had already signed numerous executive orders doing what we could administratively to make sure that guns don't fall into the hands of the wrong people.

But what I said then is still true:  If we're really going to tackle this problem seriously, then we've got to get Congress to take the next step.  And as soon as next week, they will be voting.  As soon as next week, every senator will get to vote on whether or not we should require background checks for anyone who wants to purchase a gun. 

Now, some say, well, we already have background checks.  And they're right.  Over the past 20 years, those background checks have kept more than 2 million dangerous people from buying a gun.  But the loopholes that currently exist in the law have allowed way too many criminals and folks who shouldn’t be getting guns -- it has allowed them to avoid background checks entirely.  That makes it harder for law enforcement to do its job.  It's not safe.  It's not smart.  And, by the way, it's not fair to responsible gun owners who are playing by the rules.

Now, understand, nobody is talking about creating an entirely new system.  We are simply talking about plugging holes, sealing a porous system that isn't working as well as it should.  If you want to buy a gun, whether it's from a licensed dealer or a private seller, you should at least have to pass a background check to show you're not a criminal or someone legally prohibited from buying on.  And that’s just common sense.  (Applause.) 

During our roundtable discussion with Governor Hickenlooper, who I know was in the midst of this passionate debate about the legislation here in Colorado, and some people said, well, background checks aren't going to stop everybody.  And the Governor was the first one to acknowledge, yes, they won't stop everybody, but as he pointed out, statistically, there are a whole bunch of folks who have been stopped. 

As a consequence of background checks, law enforcement has been able to stop people who have been convicted of murder from getting a gun, people who are under restraining orders for having committed violent domestic abuse from getting a gun.  In a couple of cases the governor mentioned to me, law enforcement has actually been able to arrest people who came to pick up their gun -- (laughter) -- because they were criminals, wanted.

So this does work.  And, by the way, if you’re selling a gun, wouldn’t you want to know who you’re selling it to?  Wouldn’t you want to know?  Wouldn’t you want in your conscience to know that the person you’re selling to isn’t going to commit a crime?  (Applause.) 

So these enhanced background checks won’t stop all gun crimes, but they will certainly help prevent some.  This is common sense.  And, by the way, most gun owners -- more than 80 percent -- agree this makes sense.  More than 70 percent of NRA members agree.  Ninety percent of the American people agree.  So there’s no reason we can’t do this unless politics is getting in the way.  There’s no reason we can’t do this.

As soon as next week, every senator will get a chance to vote on a proposal to help strengthen school safety and help people struggling with mental health problems get the treatment that they need.

As soon as next week, every senator will get to vote on whether or not we should crack down on folks who buy guns as part of a scheme to arm criminals.  That would keep more guns off the streets and out of the hands of people who are intent on doing harm.  And it would make life a whole lot easier and safer for the people behind me -- police officers. 

Every senator will get a say on whether or not we should keep weapons of war and high-capacity ammunition magazines that facilitate mass killings off our streets.  The type of assault rifle used in Aurora, for example, when paired with a high-capacity magazine, has one purpose:  to pump out as many bullets as possible, as fast as possible.  It’s what allowed that gunman to shoot 70 people and kill 12 in a matter of a few minutes.  I don’t believe that weapons designed for theaters of war have a place in movie theaters.  Most Americans agree with that.  (Applause.) 

Most of these ideas are not controversial.  Right now, 90 percent of Americans -- 90 percent -- support background checks that will keep criminals and people who have been found to be a danger to themselves or others from buying a gun.  More than 80 percent of Republicans agree.  Most gun owners agree.  Think about it:  How often do 90 percent of Americans agree on anything?  (Laughter.)

And yet, there are already some senators back in Washington floating the idea that they might use obscure procedural stunts to prevent or delay any of these votes on reform.  Think about that.  They’re not just saying they’ll vote “no” on the proposal that most Americans support.  They’re saying they’ll do everything they can to avoid even allowing a vote on a proposal that the overwhelming majority of the American people support.  They’re saying your opinion doesn’t matter. 

We knew from the beginning that change wouldn’t be easy.  And we knew that there would be powerful voices that would do everything they could to run out the clock, change the subject, ignore the majority of the American people.  We knew they’d try to make any progress collapse under the weight of fear and frustration, or maybe people would just stop paying attention.

The only way this time will be different is if the American people demand that this time it must be different -- that this time, we must do something to protect our communities and our kids.  (Applause.)  We need parents, we need teachers, we need police officers, we need pastors, we need hunters and sportsmen, Americans of every background to say, we’ve suffered too much pain and care too much about our children to allow this to continue.  We’re not going to just wait for the next Newtown or the next Aurora before we act.  And I genuinely believe that’s what the overwhelming majority of Americans -- I don’t care what party they belong to -- that’s what they want.  They just want to see some progress. 

It was interesting, during the conversation, a number of people talked about the trust issue.  Part of the reason it's so hard to get this done is because both sides of the debate sometimes don't listen to each other.  The people who take absolute positions on these issues, on both sides, sometimes aren't willing to concede even an inch of ground. 

And so one of the questions we talked about was, how do you build trust?  How do you rebuild some trust?  And I told the story about two conversations I had.  The first conversation was when Michelle came back from doing some campaigning out in rural Iowa.  And we were sitting at dinner, and she had been to like a big county, a lot of driving out there, a lot of farmland.  And she said, if I was living out in a farm in Iowa, I'd probably want a gun, too.  If somebody just drives up into your driveway and you're not home -- you don't know who these people are and you don't know how long it's going to take for the sheriffs to respond.  I can see why you'd want some guns for protection.  That's one conversation.

I had another conversation just a couple of months ago with a mom from Chicago -- actually, Evanston, Illinois -- whose son had been killed in a random shooting.  And she said, you know, I hate it when people tell me that my son was shot because he was in the wrong place at the wrong time.  He was in the right place.  He was on his way to school.  He wasn't in the wrong place.  He was exactly where he was supposed to be. 

Now, both those things are true.  And sometimes we're so divided between rural and urban, and folks whose hunting is part of their lives and folks whose only experience with guns is street crime.  And the two sides just talk past one another.  And more than anything, what I want to just emphasize is there are good people on both sides of this thing, but we have to be able to put ourselves in the other person's shoes.  If you're a hunter, if you're a sportsman -- if you have a gun in your house for protection -- you've got to understand what it feels like for that mom whose son was randomly shot. 

And if you live in an urban area and you're worried about street crime, you've got to understand what it might be like if you grew out on a ranch and your dad had been taking you hunting all your life.  And we had a couple of sportsmen in our conversation today, and I thought one of them said something very important.  He said, all my experiences with guns have been positive, but I realize that for others, all their experiences about guns have been negative.  Well, that's a start, right?  If we start listening to each other, then we should be able to get something done that's constructive.  We should be able to get that done.  (Applause.) 

One last thing I’m going to mention is that during this conversation -- I hope you don't mind me quoting you, Joe.  Joe Garcia, I thought, also made an important point, and that is that the opponents of some of these common-sense laws have ginned up fears among responsible gun owners that have nothing to do with what’s being proposed and nothing to do with the facts, but feeds into this suspicion about government. 

You hear some of these quotes:  “I need a gun to protect myself from the government.”  “We can't do background checks because the government is going to come take my guns away.” 

Well, the government is us.  These officials are elected by you.  (Applause.)  They are elected by you.  I am elected by you.  I am constrained, as they are constrained, by a system that our Founders put in place.  It’s a government of and by and for the people.

And so, surely, we can have a debate that's not based on the notion somehow that your elected representatives are trying to do something to you other than potentially prevent another group of families from grieving the way the families of Aurora or Newtown or Columbine have grieved.  We’ve got to get past some of the rhetoric that gets perpetuated that breaks down trust and is so over the top that it just shuts down all discussion.  And it’s important for all of us when we hear that kind of talk to say, hold on a second.  If there are any folks who are out there right now who are gun owners, and you’ve been hearing that somehow somebody is taking away your guns, get the facts.  We’re not proposing a gun registration system, we’re proposing background checks for criminals.  (Applause.)

Don't just listen to what some advocates or folks who have an interest in this thing are saying.  Look at the actual legislation.  That's what happened here in Colorado.  And hopefully, if we know the facts and we’re listening to each other, then we can actually move forward. 

And that’s what members of Congress need to hear from you.  Right now, members of Congress are at home in their districts.  Many of them are holding events where they can hear from their constituents.  So I'm asking anyone out there who is listening today, find out where your member of Congress stands on these issues.  If they're not part of the 90 percent of Americans who agree on background checks, then ask them why not.  Why wouldn’t you want to make it more difficult for a dangerous criminal to get his or her hands on a gun?  Why wouldn’t you want to close the loophole that allows too many criminals to buy a gun without even the simplest of background checks?  Why on Earth wouldn’t you want to make it easier rather than harder for law enforcement to do their job?

I know that some of the officers here today know what it's like to look into the eyes of a parent or a grandparent, a brother or a sister, or a spouse who has just lost a loved one to an act of violence.  Some of those families, by the way, are here today.  And as police officers, you know as well as anybody, there is no magic solution to prevent every bad thing from happening in the world.  You still suit up, you put on your badge, put yourself at risk every single day.  Every single day, you go to work and you try to do the best you can to protect the people you're sworn to protect and serve.  Well, how can the rest of us as citizens do anything less?

If there is just one step we can take to prevent more Americans from knowing the pain that some of the families who are here have known, don’t we have an obligation to try?  Don’t we have an obligation to try?  (Applause.)  If these reforms keep one person from murdering dozens of innocent children or worshippers or moviegoers in a span of minutes, isn't it worth fighting for?  (Applause.)  I believe it is.  That’s why I'm going to keep on working.  I'm going to keep on giving it my best efforts.  But I'm going to need your help. 

This is not easy.  And I'll be blunt -- a lot of members of Congress, this is tough for them.  Because those who are opposed to any form of legislation affecting guns, they're very well-organized and they're very well-financed.  But it can be done if enough voices are heard.

So I want to thank all the police officers who are here for giving their best efforts every single day.  (Applause.)  I want to thank Governor Hickenlooper for his outstanding leadership.  (Applause.)  I want to thank all the families who are here for your courage in being willing to take out of this tragedy something positive.  I want to thank the people of Colorado for coming together in sensible ways.  (Applause.)  Let's see if we can get the whole country to do so.

Thank you, Denver.  God bless you.  And God bless the United States of America.  (Applause.)

                                  END                3:45 P.M. MDT

President Obama tell the American people about the budget he is sending to Congress, which makes the tough choices required to grow our economy and shrink our deficits

Here’s a quick glimpse at what happened this week on WhiteHouse.gov.

President Obama marks the end of the Easter season with a prayer breakfast at the White House.

view all related blog posts

View the original article here

Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney Aboard Air Force One en route Denver, Colorado, 4/3/2013

Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney Aboard Air Force One en route Denver, Colorado, 4/3/2013 | The White House Skip to main content | Skip to footer site map The White House. President Barack Obama Get Email UpdatesContact Us Go to homepage. The White House Blog Photos & Videos Photo Galleries Video Performances Live Streams Podcasts 2012: A Year in Photos

A unique view of 2012

Briefing Room Your Weekly Address Speeches & Remarks Press Briefings Statements & Releases White House Schedule Presidential Actions Executive Orders Presidential Memoranda Proclamations Legislation Pending Legislation Signed Legislation Vetoed Legislation Nominations & Appointments Disclosures Visitor Access Records Financial Disclosures 2012 Annual Report to Congress 2011 Annual Report to Congress 2010 Annual Report to Congress on White House Staff A Commitment to Transparency

Browse White House visitor logs

Issues Civil Rights It Gets Better Defense End of Iraq War Disabilities Economy Jobs Reform and Fiscal Responsibility Strengthening the Middle Class Support for Business Education Energy & Environment Ethics Foreign Policy Health Care Homeland Security Immigration Refinancing Rural Service Seniors & Social Security Snapshots Creating Jobs Health Care Small Business PreK-12 Education Rural Taxes Tax Receipt The Buffett Rule Technology Urban Policy Veterans Joining Forces Violence Prevention Women Now Is The Time

To do something about gun violence

Immigration Reform

Creating an Immigration System for the 21st Century

The Administration We the People

Create and Sign Petitions Now

President Barack Obama Vice President Joe Biden Being Biden Audio Series First Lady Michelle Obama Dr. Jill Biden The Cabinet White House Staff Chief of Staff Denis McDonough Deputy Chief of Staff Rob Nabors Deputy Chief of Staff Alyssa Mastromonaco Counselor to the President Peter Rouse Senior Advisor Valerie Jarrett Executive Office of the President Other Advisory Boards About the White House White House On the Go

Download our mobile apps

Take A Virtual Tour

View the Residence, East Wing and West Wing

Inside the White House Interactive Tour West Wing Tour Video Series Décor and Art Holidays Presidents First Ladies The Oval Office The Vice President's Residence & Office Eisenhower Executive Office Building Camp David Air Force One White House Fellows President’s Commission About the Fellowship Current Class Staff Bios News and Newsletters White House Internships About Program Presidential Department Descriptions Selection Process Internship Timeline & FAQs Tours & Events 2013 Easter Egg Roll Kitchen Garden Tours Take a Virtual Tour of the White House Mobile Apps Our Government The Executive Branch The Legislative Branch The Judicial Branch The Constitution Federal Agencies & Commissions Elections & Voting State & Local Government Resources /* Maximize height of menu features. */if(typeof(jQuery)!='undefined')jQuery.each($('#topnav'),function(i,v){var o=$(v),oh=o.height(),sh=o.siblings().height();if(oh Home • Briefing Room • Press Briefings   The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release April 03, 2013 Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney Aboard Air Force One en route Denver, Colorado, 4/3/2013

 

Aboard Air Force OneEn Route Denver, Colorado  2:14 P.M. EDT MR. CARNEY:  Thanks for joining us today on our flight to Denver, where, as you know, the President will be meeting with law enforcement officials and others at the Denver Police Academy where he will discuss the need for Congress to act on common-sense measures to reduce the scourge of gun violence in America.   I think you can expect that he will note that the legislation he supports that has been moving through Congress represents real, sensible, middle-of-the-road attempts to address this problem; that nothing he supports would in any way violate the Second Amendment rights of the American people, the Second Amendment rights that the President strongly supports. One provision that he supports -- the effort to close loopholes in our background check system -- is supported by over 90 percent of the American people, by vast majorities of Republicans and Democrats and independents, by a substantial majority of gun owners, and a substantial majority of members of the NRA.   He has made clear in his effort, his concerted effort, to move forward with these measures since the Newtown tragedy; that it is imperative the elected officials of the American people allow all of these measures to come to a vote -- and, in his view, to vote for them -- but at the very least, to allow them to come to a vote.  Because if you disagree with 90 percent of the American people on background checks, you ought to vote no, and not oppose -- not use parliamentary maneuvers to prevent a vote.  That’s the President’s view.   In any case, he looks forward to this event.  As you know, he will be going to Connecticut on Monday to continue this conversation.   Q    When the President insists on these votes, particularly on assault weapons and the high-capacity magazines, is it because he thinks that there is a price to pay for voting no?  And isn’t there just as well a price to pay by some members of Congress, some Democrats, for voting yes on those issues? MR. CARNEY:  Jim, there are definitely political issues involved in this.  This has always been the case.  But the President doesn’t look at this through a political lens.  He’s not asking for a vote for political reasons, he’s asking for a vote because the victims of Newtown and of Aurora and Virginia Tech, and the countless lesser-known victims of gun violence across America deserve at least a vote.  And the kids who were killed -- the 20 children who were killed in Newtown, they weren’t Republicans or Democrats; they didn’t care, and their parents don’t care about the political implications of voting yes or no on these bills.  They want things done that give other children more protection from this kind of violence, and that includes every measure that the President supports.  Q    Any reaction to reports that current and former cops think that today’s Denver venue is not the right place to have a speech? MR. CARNEY:  Well, look, obviously people have a variety of views on these issues across America.  I think it’s irrefutable that a majority of law enforcement professionals in America support common-sense measures that are at issue now and subject to votes in Congress.  I don't think anybody would argue with that. I think most law enforcement officials agree that closing loopholes in our background check system assists them in their job to protect the American people from gun violence.  If you're opposed to taking measures to prevent criminals from getting weapons, vote no and explain why.  Most police officers, law enforcement officers support the idea that we ought to take measures to ensure that the system that already exists is actually effective so that those who by law should not have weapons cannot obtain them.  It’s a pretty simple proposition. Q    How do you fight the perception, though, that these measures are losing steam in Congress?  MR. CARNEY:  I think perceptions are one thing, reality is another.  And the fact is we are moving forward with Congress and are in regular conversation with members and staff from both parties about how to move forward.  And the President is committed to pressing this agenda because it’s the right thing to do for our children and all the potential victims of gun violence in the country.  I think that as I said the other day and the President has made clear, he never believed and we never suggested that any of this would be easy.  There’s a reason why these kinds of actions have not succeeded for many years now.  There are a variety of reasons why.  But it is incumbent upon every elected official sent to Washington to address this challenge, this scourge, and to -- he believes -- do the common-sense things that can help save the lives of our children in the future. Q    But there’s a difference, isn’t there, between saying this isn’t going to be easy and counting votes.  And the votes for a lot of these things aren’t there. MR. CARNEY:  Well, again, the votes haven’t happened, first of all.  Secondly, if the votes were there, Jeff, they would have been voted and done and signed into law a long time ago.  That's why a process like this exists.  That’s why negotiations are ongoing on a variety of pieces of this proposal in an effort to try to find the votes necessary.  And, unfortunately, it is, as we've said many times, a feature of our system now that everything in the Senate is subject to a filibuster.  And what the President has said I think very clearly is that it would be shameful to not allow any one of these measures to come up to a vote.   Q    You talked about parliamentary procedures.  Would you consider a filibuster an illegitimate procedure?  I mean, it is part of the rules. MR. CARNEY:  I didn’t say it wasn't part of the rules.  I said that the victims of Newtown -- the 20 kids and the 6 educators who lost their lives -- deserve a vote.  And that if you want to vote no, vote no.  Don’t block a vote.  That’s not doing service to the memory of these kids.   Q    You said that -- you have emphasized that the President doesn’t mean to impinge on anyone's Second Amendment rights, but there are a lot of people out there who believe that he does.  And if I'm not mistaken, Saturday is the five-year anniversary of his speech in San Francisco where he talked about small-town Americans clinging to guns and religion.  What about the optics of going there right after this event in Denver to call attention to his views on guns? MR. CARNEY:  As you know, and as everyone who is an expert on this issue can attest, there is not a single thing that the President has proposed that would take a single firearm away from a single law-abiding citizen in America.  This President supports our Second Amendment rights.  The proposals he put forward -- like banning military-style assault weapons, like limiting high-capacity ammunition clips -- these are proposals that in no way infringe upon Second Amendment rights, and, again, would not take any firearm away from any law enforcement -- law-abiding citizen. When it comes to straw purchases -- I mean, again, this is about enforcing the law.  If you have individuals who are routinely buying weapons as straw purchasers on behalf of criminals who cannot buy weapons themselves because of their criminal record, that’s a violation of the law, and we ought to take action to ensure that the law is enforced.  That seems like a very common-sense, conservative principle to me, as does the idea that the background check system that already exists should be improved so that loopholes are closed that make sure that it does what it was intended to do, and that is ensure that those with criminal records and others who by law should not be allowed to, or are not allowed to purchase weapons cannot circumvent the law because of the loopholes in the system. Q    Does the President see Colorado as a model for other states after the legislation that they passed here? MR. CARNEY:  The President believes that actions in Colorado, the actions underway in Connecticut do represent important progress on these issues, and I think are useful models to look at as we undertake efforts in Washington. Q    Do you know which lawmakers are going to be at the event? MR. CARNEY:  I don’t.  I can try -- if I can find out, I’ll get that for you. Q    There’s a report that Senator Bennet would be there, but the other senator wouldn’t. MR. CARNEY:  Again, I don’t know.  I’ll have to find out, or we may find out when we get there. Q    On a different subject.  The President and Mrs. Obama are going to Dallas for the Bush Library opening.  Can you tell me how that decision came about, how excited he is about going to Dallas to do this?  What will be on his mind? MR. CARNEY:  He’s very pleased to be going, and looks forward to it.  The office of the President of the United States is a pretty rare position to hold, and only those who have held it can fully appreciate what it means to be President of the United States.  And he shares in common with President George W. Bush a love, a deep love for his country, and appreciates President Bush’s service, and looks forward to being there with him as well as President George H. W. Bush and Presidents Clinton and Carter. Q    Jay, on Keystone pipeline.  One of his hosts today at the fundraiser in San Francisco is an active opponent of the Keystone pipeline -- Tom Steyer.  There are also going to be protests planned outside the Getty mansion tonight.  I guess I’ll try a third time on the Arkansas spill:  Have you had a chance to talk to the President about that spill?  And how does it affect -- how does the Utah spill affect his thinking on the Keystone pipeline, and what would he tell his hosts today if that issue comes up? MR. CARNEY:  Well, I’m not going to preview hypothetical answers to hypothetical questions.  What I will say is that there are procedures in place -- Q    The answers wouldn’t be hypothetical, the questions would be.  The answers would be answers to the hypothetical. MR. CARNEY:  Well, I think the whole thing would be hypothetical, Hans, but thank you for your -- Q    I’m just clarifying. MR. CARNEY:  I think you’re muddying, actually, but thanks. Q    No, you hide behind this hypothetical thing all the time. MR. CARNEY:  He asked me, if he’s asked, what would he say? Q    Right, but what he’d say would be his answer.  The “if” is the hypothetical. MR. CARNEY:  Well, first of all, the question hasn’t been asked.  He’s not here to give the answer to the hypothetical. Q    -- to the question is the hypothetical. MR. CARNEY:  Thank you for your assistance in the briefing, Hans.  As you know, when an incident like what has happened in Arkansas occurs, there are procedures in place.  The EPA takes the lead; the responsible party is held responsible, as is the case in this situation.  When it comes to Keystone, that is a process, as we’ve discussed many times, that is evaluated at the State Department, as has been the case for many, many years under multiple presidencies, and as is appropriate given the fact that it is a pipeline that crosses international borders.  And that process is underway, as you know. Q    But do incidents such as Arkansas, such as the spill in Utah, inform the decision-making? MR. CARNEY:  Again, the evaluation of these proposals is made at the State Department.  You can certainly ask the State Department about whether any incidents, present or past, what those incidents have in terms of an impact on their evaluation process.  I think there are standards that are followed in this evaluation process that are being followed today at the State Department, but the State Department is the location where this process takes place. Q    Is the decision of the administration at all influenced by people like Mr. Steyer, who is hosting the President today?  Is it at all influenced by the protest and demonstrators that the President sees? MR. CARNEY:  Look, I think we’ve seen over time that there are strongly held views on this issue, on both sides.  And the President is following a process that has been in place for quite some time, through multiple administrations of both parties, and that is the way it should be.  As you know, the process was delayed because of a political action by Congress, but the -- nevertheless, the process is underway and being undertaken by the State Department. Q    Are there any updates, Jay, on North Korea and monitoring of the North Korea situation? MR. CARNEY:  Well, we continue to monitor the situation.  The provocative actions and bellicose rhetoric that we see from North Korea is obviously of concern, and we take -- are taking the necessary precautionary measures, many of which have been reported on.  It is also the case that the behavior of the regime in Pyongyang that we are seeing now has a -- represents a familiar pattern, and as I think we’ve seen over the past several administrations.   So we are taking the necessary precautionary measures, but it is important to view this within the context of the kind of behavior that we’ve seen out of North Korea in the past.  And it’s important to say that, in every instance, this refusal to abide by its international obligations and to engage in threats and provocative rhetoric and behavior only serves to isolate North Korea further, to make it more and more difficult for the North Korean economy to develop, and imposes more and more hardships on the North Korean people.   North Korea knows the path that's available to it -- the regime does -- and that is a path towards greater integration in the international community, stronger economic development, and better prospects for the North Korean people if they take substantive steps towards denuclearization and abide by the series of international obligations that they are currently flouting. Q    Jay, I don’t know if you were asked this in the past few days.  But on immigration, Senator Leahy is saying he is calling for, once a bill is introduced by the Gang of Eight, that he wants to accelerate the process, to mark it up, and then advance it to the Senate floor.  Marco Rubio is calling for regular order -- wants hearings, wants more hearings.  He says we need to make sure that we really understand this bill.  What is the administration's view?  Do you believe that, like Senator Leahy, you have to move as fast as possible on this thing, because otherwise it could just die in the Senate because of it just being drawn out, and that we shouldn't go through regular order just because we've already had enough hearings over the past several years? MR. CARNEY:  I think the characterization of regular order here has to be understood within the context of the fact that this legislation in essence has been on the table and subject to debate in the United States Congress for many years now.  The basic outlines of what has been under consideration and is being worked on by the Gang of Eight and has been proposed by the President reflects legislation that was considered in Congress, in 2006, 2007, I believe.   Senator Leahy, as I understand it -- and I would refer you to him and his statements -- has held multiple hearings on this issue.  And the Gang of Eight and all of its members are the ones writing the legislation, which the President obviously believes is a good thing.  And the progress that they have made thus far is also a good thing.   So I leave it to and we leave it to the Chairman and other leaders in the Senate to decide on the process they want to follow.  But the President has made clear that he believes there is no reason to delay this process.  There is no reason to postpone it.  And he has been encouraged by the progress thus far, and hopes and expects that that progress will continue, and that it will result in the production of a bill and the consideration of the bill and a vote on the bill. Q    Now Rubio and other Republicans are saying, wait a minute, why rush it -- if it's good legislation, doesn't it deserve the test of scrutiny, of talking -- it is a new Congress.  The country has changed in the past six years; don't we want to talk it over and look at it more, possibly offer other amendments, make it better.  Do you fear that it would just get killed if it's going to be dragged out?  Is that the problem?  Or is it that people are being deported and you need to get this on the books and end the deportations that the administration is carrying out? MR. CARNEY:  Again, as veterans of the Senate know, this issue has been under consideration at very serious levels periodically for a long time now.  There is a great need to act on comprehensive immigration reform and a great opportunity to do it now, as the President has made clear.  It has been in the past, and seems to be now, a bipartisan priority.  And that is as it should be, in the President's view.   And he has been encouraged by and welcomes the progress being made by the bipartisan Group of Eight.  He has contributed to this process through the blueprint that has been available publicly for a long time now that outlines his principles when it comes to comprehensive immigration reform, and again, looks forward to further progress by the Senate, and action -- and consideration of the bill and action on the bill. Q    Jay, on another -- one last thing.  There’s a new independent report today -- among its leaders are Senator Sam Nunn -- and it says that the U.S. and Russia need to gradually take their nuclear weapons off ready-to-launch status.  I was wondering if you were familiar with that, if the President is familiar with it.  Does he endorse that idea?   MR. CARNEY:  I am not familiar with it.  I am obviously familiar with the very important work that former Senator Nunn and former Senator Lugar have done on the issues of proliferation and reduction of nuclear arsenals, but I’m not familiar with this report.   END2:35 P.M. EDT

Blog posts on this issue April 06, 2013 5:30 AM EDTWeekly Address: The President’s Plan to Create Jobs and Cut the Deficit

President Obama tell the American people about the budget he is sending to Congress, which makes the tough choices required to grow our economy and shrink our deficits

April 05, 2013 4:42 PM EDTWeekly Wrap Up: “We Have Not Forgotten”

Here’s a quick glimpse at what happened this week on WhiteHouse.gov.

April 05, 2013 4:00 PM EDTPresident Obama Marks the End of Easter Season at Prayer Breakfast

President Obama marks the end of the Easter season with a prayer breakfast at the White House.

view all related blog posts ul.related-content li.views-row img {float: left; padding: 5px 10px 0 0;}ul.related-content li.view-all {padding-bottom: 3em;} Stay ConnectedFacebookTwitterFlickrGoogle+YouTubeVimeoiTunesLinkedIn   Home The White House Blog Photos & Videos Photo Galleries Video Performances Live Streams Podcasts Briefing Room Your Weekly Address Speeches & Remarks Press Briefings Statements & Releases White House Schedule Presidential Actions Legislation Nominations & Appointments Disclosures Issues Civil Rights Defense Disabilities Economy Education Energy & Environment Ethics Foreign Policy Health Care Homeland Security Immigration Refinancing Rural Service Seniors & Social Security Snapshots Rural Taxes Technology Urban Policy Veterans Violence Prevention Women The Administration President Barack Obama Vice President Joe Biden First Lady Michelle Obama Dr. Jill Biden The Cabinet White House Staff Executive Office of the President Other Advisory Boards About the White House Inside the White House Presidents First Ladies The Oval Office The Vice President's Residence & Office Eisenhower Executive Office Building Camp David Air Force One White House Fellows White House Internships Tours & Events Mobile Apps Our Government The Executive Branch The Legislative Branch The Judicial Branch The Constitution Federal Agencies & Commissions Elections & Voting State & Local Government Resources En español Accessibility Copyright Information Privacy Policy Contact USA.gov Developers Apply for a Job

View the original article here

How A Straw Purchaser Allegedly Enabled The Colorado Prison Chief’s Murder

On Thursday, the Denver Post reported how Evan Ebel, the accused killer of Colorado prisons chief Tom Clements, used a straw purchaser to acquire the 9mm semiautomatic handgun used in the shooting.

Ebel, a white supremacist gang member, was a felon and thereby was barred under federal law from possessing a gun.  Had he tried to go into a gun store a buy a gun, he would have failed the background check.  So instead Ebel used the most common method criminals use to acquire firearms: a straw purchaser.  In this case it is alleged that Stevie Marie Vigil, a 22-year-old woman, went in to High Plains Arms to buy a gun on Ebel’s behalf.

The pattern is remarkably similar to the Christmas Eve ambush-murder of two firefighters in Webster, NY.  In that case, a 62-year-old felon named William H. Spengler allegedly relied on a neighbor, Dawn Nguyen, to buy the Bushmaster semiautomatic assault rifle he would use.

In 2009, I led a New York City undercover investigation of illegal gun sales at out-of-state gun shows than showed how easy it is to get away with even a blatant straw purchase – and how some licensed gun dealers are complicit in the practice. The following video, from a gun show in Tennessee, shows a gun dealer enabling an obvious straw purchase where the buyer gets “my friend over here to do some paperwork for me.”

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), has reported that straw purchasing is the single most common method by which guns get diverted from the legal market to the illegal market.  An ATF study showed that fully 46% of guns related to illegal trafficking involved straw purchasers.

Criminals rely on straw purchases because it’s easy, it’s hard to get caught, and the penalties are light even when cases are brought.

It’s hard to get caught because under federal law, there are no background checks or record-keeping on gun transfers by unlicensed private sellers.  That means it’s legal in most states to buy one gun or 10 and later sell them to someone else.  It’s illegal to buy a gun with the intent of transferring immediately to someone else – but with no background checks, straw purchasers know they are very unlikely to be caught.

And, even if the straw purchaser is caught – which usually happens as in Colorado and Webster, NY after the gun was used in a prominent murder – the penalties are weak.

As Brad Beyersdorf, spokesman for the ATF Denver field division said speaking of the Ebel case, “There’s little-to-no punishment for being a straw purchaser. Gang members know it, drug trafficking organizations know it.”

What’s the solution?  Simple: pass the gun bill that that is coming up for a vote in the Senate next month, which would require universal background checks and substantially raise the penalties for straw purchasers and gun traffickers.

View the original article here

Colorado Sheriffs Threaten Not To Enforce Their Own State’s Gun Laws

For months, local sheriffs have been objecting to federal efforts to stem gun violence in the wake of the Newtown massacre, claiming they violate “states’ rights.” Now, with a package of gun violence prevention measures awaiting the governor’s signature in a state that has seen some of the most deadly and high-profile mass shootings, several Colorado county sheriffs are threatening not to enforce their own state’s measures to expand criminal background checks and limit ammunition magazines if they are signed into law. The Greeley Tribune reports:

Weld County Sheriff John Cooke said he won’t enforce either gun-control measure waiting to be signed into law by Gov. John Hickenlooper, saying the laws are “unenforceable” and would “give a false sense of security.” […]

“They’re feel-good, knee-jerk reactions that are unenforceable,” he said.

Cooke said the bill requiring a $10 background check to legally transfer a gun would not keep firearms out of the hands of those who use them for violence.

“Criminals are still going to get their guns,” he said.

Cooke said the other bill would also technically ban all magazines because of a provision that outlaws any magazine that can be altered. He said all magazines can be altered to a higher capacity.

Cooke said he, like other county sheriffs, “won’t bother enforcing” the laws because it will be impossible for them to keep track of how the requirements are being met by gun owners. He said he and other sheriffs are considering a lawsuit against the state to block the measures if they are signed into law.

El Paso County Sheriff Terry Maketa also said Thursday that several of the laws are unenforceable and that he would willfully ignore the high-capacity magazine limit. And Cooke’s position appears to have the support of a number of other state sheriffs; during testimony calling the law unenforceable, 20 other county sheriffs stood behind him in solidarity.

Sheriffs’ assertions that the laws are simply too difficult to enforce and/or ineffective is the latest in a string of arguments by a contingent of county sheriffs opposed to any new gun violence prevention measures. Other sheriffs, several of whom are part of a fringe militia group whose members believe that sheriffs are the highest law enforcement authorities and vow to defy any law or order that violates their radical view of the Constitution, have argued that federal regulation violates states’ rights and the Second Amendment.

Conservative legislators are also already committing to repeal the ammunition magazine limit if enacted through a 2014 ballot measure.

Other measures that passed both houses of the Colorado legislature include a requirement that firearm buyers pay for their own background checks, a ban on online certification for concealed-carry permits, and a ban on gun purchases by people convicted of domestic violence crimes.

View the original article here

BREAKING: Civil Unions To Become Law In Colorado After Final House Vote

Openly gay Colorado Speaker Mark Ferrandino (D)

Just now, the Colorado House voted 39-26 to grant final approval to a bill that would offer civil unions to same-sex couples, advancing  it to Gov. John Hickenlooper’s (D) desk for his promised signature. Colorado has a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, so civil unions are an important extension of partner benefits until that amendment can be repealed or overturned.

Lawmakers have attempted to pass civil unions for several years now. In 2012, enough Republicans supported the bill for it to pass, but Republican leadership in the House blocked it by sending it to a (fourth) committee whose members voted to kill it. The expediency with which the bill advanced this year reflects the large victories Democrats enjoyed in the November election.

Here is how the House voted:

View the original article here

Student Murdered By Stalker Inspires Colorado Bill To Keep Guns Away From Domestic Abusers

Inspired by a student who was murdered by her stalker, a Colorado lawmaker has introduced a bill banning gun possession by anyone who has been convicted of domestic violence or has been the subject of a restraining order.

Senate Bill 197 is the first of four gun violence prevention measures being considered in Colorado’s Senate Judiciary Committee today. The bill would also require an individual with a restraining order against them to relinquish any guns in their possession within 24 hours. State Sen. Evie Hudak (D-CO), the legislation’s sponsor, was a teacher at the school where the student was shot after filing a restraining order against her killer:

Hudak said the student who was killed at the private business college where she was teaching had taken out a restraining order against her stalker, and “we were all told to keep an eye on her.”

“She appeared to have dropped out of school,” Hudak said. “A few weeks later they found her body.”

This unnamed student is hardly an unusual case. American women are at a higher risk to be homicide victims than women in any other high-income country. Over 90 percent of female homicide victims are killed by someone they know, and 76 percent of these victims were stalked before their deaths. Guns are the most common weapon used in these murders.

Pro-gun advocates have tried to frame gun rights as an issue of women’s safety, claiming that gun-free zones disarm women who need to protect themselves from sexual assault. Since an estimated two-thirds of sexual assaults are perpetrated by someone the victim knows, a gun would probably not help a woman defend herself.

In reality, women are much more likely to be on the other end of the barrel. Nearly 6 times more women were shot by a husband, boyfriend or ex than by a male stranger in 2010. Purchasing a handgun, according to some analyses, provides no protection against homicide and actually increases the risk of being murdered by a partner. Abusers who have access to firearms are over 7 times more likely to kill their partners. Even women who simply live in states with higher gun ownership are 4.9 times more likely to be murdered with a gun than women who live in lower gun ownership rates.

According to SB 197, Colorado is home to 41,244 domestic violence victims. The number of victims in the state rose dramatically by 11.6 percent between 2011 and 2012, compared to the 3.6 percent the year before.

View the original article here

It’s Not Too Late to Change the Course of the Vanishing Colorado River

Rachel Nuwer via Take Part

In 1922 the conservationist Aldo Leopold canoed through a lush, verdant delta full of green lagoons, darting fish and squawking waterfowl. But Leopold’s “milk and honey wilderness,” where the Colorado River empties into Mexico’s Gulf of California, ceased to exist decades ago. In its stead, a cracked, barren mudflat stretches for miles.

“If we choose, we can have healthy rivers alongside healthy economies,” Postel said. “We don’t have to be running our rivers dry.”

“This amazing place does not exist anymore,” said Sandra Postel, director of the Global Water Policy Project and freshwater fellow of the National Geographic Society. “A lot was lost.”

Ten major dams — from the Hoover Dam, erected in 1936, to the Glen Canyon Dam, completed in 1966 — block the flow of the Colorado River. Countless towns and industries siphon water from the river and its many tributaries as it meanders to the sea. Today the Colorado River joins the likes of the Indus, the Rio Grande, the Nile and other major world rivers that are so over-tapped they no longer reach the sea for long stretches of time. “This is one of America’s iconic rivers,” Postel said. “I don’t think this country would be the one we know today without the Colorado.”

It does not have to be this way, however. A restoration and outreach effort called Change the Course seeks to return the river to the sea. To pursue this goal, the National Geographic Society, the Bonneville Environmental Foundation, and Participant Media teamed up and pooled their expertise — science, social media, storytelling and policy — to change the fate of the once-mighty Colorado River.

A key to the campaign’s potential success rests on reversing more than 100 years of water use along the river. Since the mid-1800s, the Colorado River’s water was legally divided amongst farmers, landowners and ranchers along its course. Then, in the 1920s, seven states in the Colorado basin were allowed to divert additional water for cities, agriculture and industry. The result: more people have rights to divert water than the river has water to supply.

The clincher, however, is this: water rights holders have to “use it or lose it.” If a stakeholder does not divert his allocated amount of water from the river each year, he may lose those rights.

Bonneville Environmental Foundation, a nonprofit based in Portland, seized upon this idea.

The foundation’s water restoration certificates (WRCs) are designed to give landowners a choice in how they use their water. WRCs are a voluntary, market-based program that provides economic incentives allowing water rights holders to devise new water management solutions to restore water to critically dewatered ecosystems. Simply put, the WRC program provides funding to support projects that allow landowners to change they way they use their water rights in order to restore vital water to dewatered rivers and streams.

“We use market-based ideas to involve the private sector in solving environmental challenges,” said Todd Reeve, Bonneville’s chief executive officer. “The certificates can act as currency and a reporting mechanism to allow any business to restore to the planet the amount equal to the resources used in its operations.”

So far, Silk, the soy, almond and coconut milk company, has joined the campaign, and Reeve hopes that a myriad of others seeking to bolster their sustainability profiles join in the weeks and months to come. But it isn’t just companies that Change the Course hopes to reach. Importantly, it’s young people too.

Though 70 to 90 percent of the Colorado’s water is used for agriculture and industry, tackling the problem holistically means addressing the remaining consumption by households throughout the West. Following the theme of its film Last Call at the Oasis, Participant Media is launching the social action portion of the campaign, seeking to target 100,000 millennials as its core audience. After watching a minute-and-a-half informative video on the project and on individuals’ water footprints, people can sign a pledge to minimize their own water footprints. Joining the campaign automatically ensures that 1,000 gallons of water return to the Colorado River, which corporate sponsors such as Silk support by purchasing water restoration certificates.

People who sign up for the campaign receive sporadic texts and emails to keep them updated on the Colorado’s progress and also to educate them about their personal water footprints and ways to minimize their impacts.

For example, a participant may get a text informing her that 634 gallons of water are used to produce a single hamburger; that the person she loves most in the world is composed of 78 percent water; that only one percent of all water on Earth is not saltwater or frozen in ice; or that her T-shirt or winter salad comes from water-gobbling crops supported by the Colorado River.

Additionally, Participant Media plans to host an alternative summer break, inviting about a dozen young people to join them at restoration sites along the Colorado in the hopes that they will blog about their experiences and spread the word about the campaign to their universities. A series of short videos called Life Without Water is Awkward will also soon be released to raise attention for the campaign.

If things go well, the Colorado River could reach the sea in five to seven years, thanks to the efforts of Change the Course and numerous other nonprofit groups working to the same goal. “I think this has the potential to be one of the most significant environmental achievements of the last 50 to 100 years,” Reeve said.

Postel is confident that just adding water would do wonders for restoring wetland and riparian ecosystems, as demonstrated in a recent accidental natural experiment. Arizona, finding some of its water too salty to use, began sending the liquid waste over the border to Mexico’s desiccated delta. Soon, 14,000 acres of vegetation popped up around that life-giving source. “This is an example of how resilient the ecosystem is,” Postel said. “If you just add water, it will bounce back.”

“If we choose, we can have healthy rivers alongside healthy economies,” Postel said. “We don’t have to be running our rivers dry.”

For the Colorado and its tributaries, these fixes could mean changing where and how irrigation water is diverted so as to keep more water in natural river channels, or making use of opportunities to buy or lease water, as Change the Course successfully did with conservation partners last summer for the Yampa River near Steamboat Springs, Colorado.

Pending the campaign’s success, Change the Course is already imagining applying its formula to other rivers in need around the world, such as the Ganges or the Yellow. “We hope this community grows over time, and that Change the Course can help not only the 30 million people dependent on the Colorado River, but other people living in endangered freshwater systems around the world,” said Chad Boettcher, Participant Media’s executive vice president of social action and advocacy.

Rachel Nuwer is a science journalist writing for venues such as the New York Times, Scientific American, Smithsonian and Audubon Magazine, among others. She lives in Brooklyn.

jQuery(document).ready(function(){jQuery('#comment_submit').click(function(){if(jQuery('#comment_check:checked').length

View the original article here

Colorado Lawmaker: Women Can’t Tell Whether They’re About To Be Raped, May Shoot The Wrong Person

State Rep. Joe Salazar (D-CO)

In a debate over whether to prevent college students from carrying concealed weapons on campus on Friday, Colorado Rep. Joe Salazar (D) suggested that female students are too paranoid to responsibly use a firearm. According to the state lawmaker, women may not be able to tell whether or not they’re actually in danger and end up pulling the trigger on an innocent person:

SALAZAR: It’s why we have call boxes, it’s why we have safe zones, it’s why we have the whistles. Because you just don’t know who you’re gonna be shooting at. And you don’t know if you feel like you’re gonna be raped, or if you feel like someone’s been following you around or if you feel like you’re in trouble when you may actually not be, that you pop out that gun and you pop … pop a round at somebody.

Gun advocates often attempt to frame concealed carry permits as a women’s issue, claiming that women need the added protection of a firearm to fight back against attempted incidents of sexual assault. Domestic violence counselors vehemently oppose the policy, pointing out that hidden guns on campus won’t actually help address rape culture, particularly since an estimated two-thirds of sexual assaults occur between people who already know each other. But suggesting that women are too emotional to be able to identify sexual violence — and implying that paranoid women may sometimes “feel like” they’re in trouble when they “may actually not be” — doesn’t help address pervasive issues of rape culture, either.

Salazar apologized for his remarks today. “I’m sorry if I offended anyone,” his statement read. “That was not my intention. We were having a public policy debate on whether or not guns makes people safer on campus. I don’t believe they do. That was the point I was trying to make.”

Insensitive comments about rape certainly know no party lines. But concrete policies to address issues of sexual assault have unfortunately become more partisan in recent months. The federal Violence Against Women Act, which has strengthened systems to help survivors of sexual violence for the past 18 years — and which specifically impacts college students, since it helps fund campus programs to address dating violence — has been locked in a political battle in Congress ever since GOP lawmakers balked at adding expanding protections for diverse communities. Republicans in Congress actually let it expire for the first time ever during the last legislative session.

View the original article here

Colorado Considers Banning Guns On College Campuses, Overruling State Supreme Court

A bill to ban guns on college campuses cleared Colorado’s House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday and heads to the Education Committee Wednesday morning. The bill would add college campuses to the short list of exceptions to concealed carry permits. Permits currently let gun owners carry their weapons everywhere in the state besides K-12 schools and federal properties.

House Bill 1226 was crafted in response to a 2011 state Supreme Court ruling that forced the University of Colorado to allow guns on campus. Permit holders could still carry their guns on campus, but not in campus buildings, school sporting arenas, or at school-sponsored events.

After the Colorado Supreme Court ruling, the University of Colorado compromised by creating separate off-campus housing for students who wanted to carry their guns on campus. However, zero students opted to live in the college’s gun dorm. While the University of Colorado has had no complaints since their gun ban was overturned, there have been 20 shootings on college campuses in the US since the Virginia Tech massacre in 2007.

The state legislature is also considering a bill that would require gun owners to pay $10 for their own background check, which one Republican lawmaker argued is “a poll tax.” Another measure approved by the Judiciary Committee would ban high-capacity ammunition magazines of more than 15 rounds, like the kind used by James Holmes in the Aurora theater shooting.

View the original article here

Colorado Senate Grants Final Passage Of Civil Unions

With a final vote of 21-14, the Colorado Senate has approved its third and final passage of SB 11, the civil unions bill. There was no additional debate before today’s vote. The bill proceeds to the House, where its sponsor, openly gay Rep. Mark Ferrandino (D), is now the chamber’s Speaker.

View the original article here

Colorado Committee Kills Bill Giving Legal Protections To Teaching Climate Change Denial And Creationism In Schools

By Jessica Goad

Earlier this week, a key legislative committee in Colorado voted down a bill that would give teachers at the state’s schools and colleges legal cover to teach the questioning of climate change and other subjects that “cause controversy” in the classroom.  The bill directed teachers to:

… create an environment that encourages students to intelligently and respectfully explore scientific questions and learn about scientific evidence related to biological and chemical evolution, global warming, and human cloning.

H.B. 13-1089 was sponsored by Rep. Stephen Humphrey (R) who explained:

This bill is not a curriculum change that would force educators to teach intelligent design or creationism.  It simply provides legal protections to those teachers who would like to provide their students with a complete education on both the strengths and weaknesses of these hotly debated scientific subjects.

The Colorado House Education Committee, of which Democrats are the majority, voted down the bill on a party line vote.

Colorado is not the only state to see such bills, even if their radical anti-science message did not gain traction there.  Legislators in five other states have introduced bills allowing teachers to deny evolution and climate change.  Interestingly, they all bear resemblance to “model” legislation that has been promoted by the American Legislative Exchange Council, a conservative corporate front-group that puts together draft bills for use by state legislators.

In the past, ALEC has drafted model bills such as the “Environmental Literacy Improvement Act,” which requires teachers to “encourage an atmosphere of respect for different opinions and open-mindedness to new ideas.”  ALEC has also been behind bills that block putting a price on carbon, turn over public lands to states and private companies, and roll back state renewable electricity standards.  One of the co-sponsors of the bill in the Colorado Senate is a dues-paying member of ALEC.

The Heartland Institute, an extremist group that once compared people who believe in global warming to the Unabomber, has also been linked to these types of bills.  Heartland is still a member of the ALEC task force that originally wrote the Environmental Literacy Improvement Act, and is also designing climate-denial curriculum.

The fight over teaching climate change denial in schools has just begun.  As Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education put it:

This victory in Colorado was too close. People in Colorado and elsewhere need to understand that these bills would be nothing but trouble: scientifically misleading, pedagogically unnecessary, and likely to produce administrative, legal, and economic headaches.

Jessica is the Manager of Research and Outreach for the Center for the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

jQuery(document).ready(function(){jQuery('#comment_submit').click(function(){if(jQuery('#comment_check:checked').length

View the original article here

BREAKING: Colorado Senate Approves Civil Unions Legislation

Civil unions sponsor Sen. Pat Steadman (D) speaking before supporters in May 2012.

Just now, the Colorado Senate voted 21-14 to approve Senate Bill 11, which would create civil unions for same-sex couples. This was the second of two readings, with a final vote expected on Monday. During the debate, several Republicans attempted to add various amendments that would create special religious protections for adoption agencies to discriminate against same-sex couples, but none of them passed. Denver area political reporter Eli Stokols pointed out that last year’s civil unions bill had such protections, but House Republicans went out of their way to block that bill from passing.

The bill is expected to advance quickly through the House this year. Not only did Democrats win control over the House, but they also elected openly gay Representative Mark Ferrandino (D), the bill’s sponsor, as Speaker of the House. A November poll found that 70 percent of Coloradans support legal recognition for same-sex couples.

View the original article here

Oklahoma, Colorado And Arizona Push ALEC Bill To Require Teaching Climate Change Denial In Schools

By Steve Horn Via DeSmogBlog

The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) - known by its critics as a “corporate bill mill” – has hit the ground running in 2013, pushing “models bills” mandating the teaching of climate change denial in public school systems.

January hasn’t even ended, yet ALEC has already planted its ”Environmental Literacy Improvement Act“ - which mandates a “balanced” teaching of climate science in K-12 classrooms - in the state legislatures of Oklahoma, Colorado, and Arizona so far this year.

In the past five years since 2008, among the hottest years in U.S. history, ALEC has introduced its “Environmental Literacy Improvement Act” in 11 states, or over one-fifth of the statehouses nationwide. The bill has passed in four states, an undeniable form of “big government” this “free market” organization decries in its own literature.

ALEC’s “model bills” are written by and for corporate lobbyists alongside conservative legislators at its annual meetings. ALEC raises much of its corporate funding from the fossil fuel industry, which in turn utilizes ALEC as a key - though far from the only – vehicle to ram through its legislative agenda through in the states.

A DeSmogBlog investigation last year found that the Environmental Literacy Improvement Act’s orgins date back to 2000.

The Act’s creation is directly connected to the ongoing efforts of another corporate-funded group, the Heartland Institute – of “Heartland Institute Exposed” fame – a group well plugged into the climate change denial machine.

ALEC’s Natural Resources Task Force, now known as its Energy, Environment and Agriculture Task Force, adopted this model at a time when the Task Force was headed by Sandy Liddy Bourne. Bourne, who served in this capacity from 1999-2004, would eventually ascend to the role of Director of Legislation and Policy for ALEC in 2004.

Upon leaving ALEC in 2006, Bourne become Heartland’s Vice President for Policy Strategy. Today she serves as Exectutive Director of the American Energy Freedom Center, an outfit she co-heads withArthur G. Randol. Randol is a longtime lobbyist and PR flack for ExxonMobil, a corporation which endowed the climate change denial machine for years.

Heartland’s website still lists Bourne as one of its “experts,” stating that ”Under her leadership, 20 percent of ALEC model bills were enacted by one state or more, up from 11 percent.”

Importantly, Heartland is still a member of ALEC’s Energy, Environment and Agriculture Task Force that originally passed the Environmental Literacy Improvement Act.

According to internal documents leaked to and published by DeSmogBlog in Feb. 2012, Heartland obtained funding for a “Global Warming Curriculum for K-12 Classrooms” project beginning in 2012. This cirruculum aims to teach that there “is a major controversy over whether or not humans are changing the weather.”

If this sounds similar to ALEC’s model bill, it should, given the fact that the two outfits share funding from the same honey pot. In fact, Heartland actively promotes the ALEC model on its website.

Oklahoma and Colorado came first and within just over a week, Arizona followed suit in proposing the ALEC climate science “mis-education” bill.

Oklahoma: Sooner Rather than Later

On Jan. 18, the Sooner State’s legislature took the lead for 2013 in pushing the ALEC climate change education model in the form of HB 1674, the “Scientific Education and Academic Freedom Act.”

HB 1674 calls for the teaching of “scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories,” including of global warming, saying it’s a theory steeped in “controversy” - not that the actual scientific record thinks so.

This is necessary, the bill states, “to help students develop critical thinking skills they need in order to become intelligent, productive, and scientifically informed citizens,” going on to explain that it’s important to explore “differences of opinion on scientific issues.”

The ALEC model similarly calls for the teaching of “critical thinking so that students will be able to fairly and objectively evaluate scientific…controversies.” The model also mandates creation of “an atmosphere of respect for different opinions and open-mindedness to new ideas” in the scientific sphere.

The OK bill is sponsored by Rep. Gus Blackwell (R-61), unsurprisngly a dues-paying member of ALEC. According to a Dec. 2012 report published by the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) titled, “Buying Influence,” Blackwell has paid for his attendance at least one ALEC meeting with taxpayer money.

National Institute on Money in State Politics’ data demonstrates that Blackwell’s largest pool of campaign funding for his 2012 electoral victory came from the oil and gas industry, which gave him $28,800. This includes taking $7,500 from shale gas industry giant Chesapeake Energy, $2,350 from ConocoPhillips, and $1,000 each from Koch Industries and coal industry giant Duke Energy, among others. All of these corporations also fund ALEC.

Colorado’s Same Day Affair

One sure sign of a coordinated, ALEC-lead effort is the fact that Colorado’s state legislature introduced the ALEC model on the same day as did Oklahoma’s. The two states, it’s worth noting, share a border on Oklahoma’s panhandle.

On Jan. 18, 2013, eight representatives and four senators introduced HB 13-1089, coining the bills the “Academic Freedom Acts.”

Paralleling the language in the ALEC model and the Oklahoma bill, the HB 13-1089 aims to “Inform students about scientific evidence and to help students develop critical thinking skills,” also recognizing that the teaching of the concept global warming “can cause controversy.”

One of the senators co-sponsoring the bill, Rep. Scott Renfroe (R-13) is an ALEC dues-paying member. He’s also attended at least one ALEC meeting paid for by Colorado taxpayers, according to the CMD’s “Buying Influence” report.

Of the $91,000 dollars he raised for the 2012 election, over $5,000 of it came from the oil, gas and electric utilities industry, according to the National Institute on Money in State Politics. This includes taking money from Chesapeake Energy, Anadarko Petroleum, Williams Companies, and the Colorado Oil and Gas Association.

The Arizona (Sun) Devils are in the Details

Eight days later, ALEC’s model bill made its way to Arizona, a state sharing a “corner border” with Colorado.

Arizona’s SB 1213 was introduced on Jan. 26, 2013 by six senators that, as it turns out, are all dues-paying ALEC members. Five of the six have attended conferences totally on the taxpayer dime,according to CMD’s report.

SB 1213 incorporates the “critical thinking skills” operative language, the “scientific controversies” operative language and the  ”teaching…global warming” can “cause controversy” operative language.

In short, SB 1213 is the same exact copycat ALEC model bill that’s been proposed in both Oklahoma and Colorado.

Groundhog Day is on Feb. 2 and fittingly, ALEC and its corporate patrons continue to sing the same tune, simultaneously promoting fracking, blockading a transition to renewable energy and pushing bills mandating teaching climate change denial on par with actual science.

“It’s the same old schtick every year, the guy comes out with a big old stick, raps on the door,” actor Bill Murray said in the classic film “Groundhog Day.” “They pull the little rat out, they talk to him, the rat talks back, then they tell us what’s gonna happen.”

Replace “guy” with “corporate lobbyist” and “legislators” with “rats” and that’s ALEC in a nutshell, serving as a mere microcosm of the current American political system at-large.
Desmogblog (http://s.tt/1zbJI)

– Steve Horn’s piece is reprinted from DeSmogBlog

jQuery(document).ready(function(){jQuery('#comment_submit').click(function(){if(jQuery('#comment_check:checked').length

View the original article here