The main work of the Colorado state Legislature centers on money – raising it, allocating it, spending it and, above all, fighting over it. It is serious business with real consequences. Before getting to that, however, there is time for the more entertaining legislators to drag out their pet peeves, personal obsessions or individual oddities and wave them around.
These things generally go nowhere, but it is worth noting a few of them from time to time if for no other reason than to drive home how deeply disturbing some of these efforts really can be. Two examples from this week show a frighteningly cavalier attitude toward danger and death.
Senate Bill 17 is sponsored in the upper house by state Sen. Tim Neville, R-Littleton, and in the House by his son, state Rep. Patrick Neville, R-Castle Rock. State Sen. Neville is a candidate for the Republican nomination to face off against U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet,D-Denver.
SB 17 is an attempt to institute what supporters call “constitutional carry,” the almost entirely unrestricted right to carry a concealed weapon. Under current Colorado law an individual may carry a concealed gun only with a permit and getting one requires a background check, fingerprint verification and demonstrated competence with a handgun. In addition, county sheriffs can deny such a permit if the applicant is the subject of a restraining order or has a known drug problem.
The Nevilles’ bill would do away with all that. All that would remain of Colorado’s eminently reasonable existing law would be the requirement to be 21 years of age and the prohibition against carrying a concealed handgun into schools and certain other properties such as courthouses.
The bill is a solution to a non-existent problem. Sheriffs cannot now deny permits on the basis of whim or personal animus. Given a qualified applicant, they must issue a concealed carry permit. And doing away with background checks would simply mean criminals could legally carry guns. What is the point to that?
Apparently it is political. Sen. Neville’s other son, Joe, is a lobbyist for Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, a group that considers the National Rifle Association too squishy on gun rights.
SB 17 should be killed quickly and decisively.
Another example of legislative lunacy is Senate Bill 64, introduced by state Sen. Kevin Lundberg, R-Berthoud. Its premise seems to be that Colorado is just not killing enough people.
SB 64 would end the requirement that juries be unanimous in imposing the death penalty. All 12 jurors would still have to vote together to convict anyone of the crime, but in the sentencing phase only nine of the 12 jurors would have to vote for execution.
Not only is this another solution without a problem, it flies in the face of good sense. To serve on a jury in a Colorado death penalty case, a juror must already be “death qualified,” that is willing to impose the death penalty if the facts of the case warrant it.
Were SB 64 to become law, Colorado would still require a unanimous verdict to convict someone of theft or drunken driving. The ultimate, irrevocable penalty, however, could be imposed with a three-fourths vote? If not straightforward blood lust, what would be the point to that?
It is SB 64 that deserves the death penalty.
