More new Colorado Restrictions
Laszlo Nobi
Here are some more new bothersome restrictions that appear in Colorado's big
game brochure this year courtesy of our increasingly liberal legislature:
CHILD SUPPORT DELINQUENCY
New for 1998: A new state law allows the suspension or denial of a
hunting license if you have failed to pay your child support. The law
also allows information from your license application to be shared with
state child support enforcement agencies.
WEAPONS RESTRICTIONS
1. New for 1998 - Colorado law prohibits convicted felons from
possessing any firearms or other weapons, including muzzleloaders and
archery equipment. Violating this law may be a felony. Therefore, any
convicted felon cannot hunt in Colorado, both resident and nonresident
hunters.
2. New for 1998 - Federal law prohibits anyone convicted of a crime of
domestic violence, either felony or misdemeanor convictions, to possess a
firearm. If the conviction was a misdemeanor, hunters can hunt in
Colorado with muzzleloading or archery equipment. If the conviction was
a felony, hunters cannot hunt with any firearm or weapon, including
muzzleloading and archery. For questions about whether a crime falls in
the category of domestic violence, contact the local district attorney.
For questions about firearms, call the Federal Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, and Firearms, (303)844-3421 in Denver."
I'm not affected by any of these new laws, but they really bother me because
it's so easy to fall into the trap.
Now, I see no connection between the payment of child support and hunting.
The liberal women in the legislature are continuously looking for more and
more ways to punish (primarily) men for this "crime". If you'd take a look
at some of the outrageous child support awards these days, you might
understand why some men just say "screw it". I pay my ex almost $900 for
one child, and she gets over $1000 for two kids from a second
marriage....she's on her third. I'm not trying to justify non-payment of
child support, but the current awards are basically extortion. Instead of
trying to punish men more and more, they ought to fix the problem with the
punitive child support laws and Draconian enforcement procedures.
As far as the weapons restrictions, I wonder how many hunters have, perhaps
sometime in the distant past, been convicted of a non-violent felony.
Violation of a restraining order is a felony. It's awful easy to be
convicted of that with a vindictive ex-wife who claims you're harassing her.
I probably came close to that when I was getting divorced, because my ex was
determined to ruin me. DUI, I believe, is a felony in some cases. I know
people who have been convicted of DUI, but they are not violent people.
What about the guy who, years ago, did something stupid as a youth, served
his time, and has been a good citizen for decades? It seems that this new
law prevents him from hunting.
I have no problem keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of dangerous
criminals, but these laws go too far, and are too general IMO.
Domestic violence is another can of worms altogether. How many times have
we seen a couple get into an argument, maybe push each other around, and
have the neighbor call the cops. It would be awful easy to get convicted of
a misdemeanor charge for domestic violence, IMO. A little more serious
"jostling" might result in a felony charge. Colorado has now chosen to
prevent you from hunting if convicted.
With all the hunting bans and other restrictions popping up every year, I
can't wait til I can move out of this screwed up state....
Laszlo
Member: Wildlife Legislation Fund of America
Rocky Mountain Bighorn Society
National Rifle Association
Colorado Bowhunters Association
Ft. Collins Archery Association
Let us prey.....
PETA-- People for the Eating of Tasty Animals
The opinions expressed here are my own, and do not
necessarily represent those of Hewlett-Packard Company
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Visit the rec.hunting and rec.hunting.dogs FAQ Home Page at:
http://sportsmansweb.com/hunting/
To leave the Hunting listserv list, send a message with SIGNOFF HUNTING
in the *body* to list...@listserv.tamu.edu
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Calvin
Laszlo Nobi <las...@hpfcla.fc.hp.com> wrote in part:
>I have no problem keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of dangerous
>criminals, but these laws go too far, and are too general IMO.
Anti-gun/anti-hunting legislators have no problem voting for any laws that
make gun ownership or hunting more difficult. The cure for this problem is
at the ballot box.
Tim Calvin <timh...@quiknet.com> NRA Life Member
Chris Barnes
On Tue, 3 Mar 1998, Laszlo Nobi wrote:
> Now, I see no connection between the payment of child support and hunting.
> The liberal women in the legislature are continuously looking for more and
> more ways to punish (primarily) men for this "crime".
You're flat wrong on this one. Not paying child support IS a crime, pure
and simple. I believe in Texas, it's classified as theft, and if the
amount reaches some magical amount, it can become a felony (grand theft).
I have no problem with withholding ANY type of license (hunting, drivers,
whatever) as a way to catch up to these pond scum.
> As far as the weapons restrictions, I wonder how many hunters have, perhaps
> sometime in the distant past, been convicted of a non-violent felony.
> Violation of a restraining order is a felony. It's awful easy to be
> convicted of that with a vindictive ex-wife who claims you're harassing her.
> I probably came close to that when I was getting divorced, because my ex was
> determined to ruin me. DUI, I believe, is a felony in some cases. I know
> people who have been convicted of DUI, but they are not violent people.
> What about the guy who, years ago, did something stupid as a youth, served
> his time, and has been a good citizen for decades? It seems that this new
> law prevents him from hunting.
It is already illegal for a felon to carry a firearm as *federal law* (ps.
they can't ever vote either). It's part of the price of being convicted.
This isn't new.
PSS. DUI most certainly is violent.
> Domestic violence is another can of worms altogether. How many times have
> we seen a couple get into an argument, maybe push each other around, and
> have the neighbor call the cops. It would be awful easy to get convicted of
> a misdemeanor charge for domestic violence, IMO. A little more serious
> "jostling" might result in a felony charge. Colorado has now chosen to
> prevent you from hunting if convicted.
On this one, we agree. CO went past federal law in making the same assult
on one person more severe than another.
> With all the hunting bans and other restrictions popping up every year, I
> can't wait til I can move out of this screwed up state....
Psst. You wouldn't like Texas either!
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Chris Barnes chris-...@bigfoot.com
Everyone has a photographic memory, but not everyone has film.
ea...@idcomm.com
In article <6dhhje$3...@fcnews.fc.hp.com>,
Laszlo Nobi <las...@hpfcla.fc.hp.com> wrote:
>
> Now, I see no connection between the payment of child support and hunting.
There isn't any, of course. And hunting isn't all you lose, you lose your
other licenses, including your professional licenses. This is an example of
legislative fatuity that it took the federal government to come up with;
even our Colorado legislators could not have been that stupid without federal
blackmail "forcing" them to pass it. The doctor who is behind in support
loses his license to practice, the professional engineer his PE, the pizza
delivery guy his drivers license -- and this the Congress expects will put
more food in the mouths of their children. A friend who has been there calls
it the stupid tax -- what you get to pay for breeding someone who isn't a
grownup, and who isn't economically independent. Losing your hunting has now
become a part of the stupid tax.
It would be awful easy to get convicted of
> a misdemeanor charge for domestic violence, IMO. A little more serious
> "jostling" might result in a felony charge. Colorado has now chosen to
> prevent you from hunting if convicted.
Colorado did this, not entirely on its own hook, but out of blackmail by the
US Congress, which will withhold monies if the states don't pass this. What
I find most obnoxious about this is that it violates the constituional
provision against ex post facto laws. There are hundreds in Colorado who
pled to a misdemeanor domestic charge years ago, with no idea that this extra
punishment would be superadded onto them in 1998.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Ed Rasimus
Tim Calvin <timh...@mail2.quiknet.com> wrote:
> Laszlo Nobi <las...@hpfcla.fc.hp.com> wrote in part:
>
>>I have no problem keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of dangerous
>>criminals, but these laws go too far, and are too general IMO.
>
>Anti-gun/anti-hunting legislators have no problem voting for any laws that
>make gun ownership or hunting more difficult. The cure for this problem is
>at the ballot box.
I've got a bit of a problem attributing the "new" changes in the
Colorado regs to anti-gun/anti-hunting legislators. Possibly (make
that probably) the laws relating to convicted felons owning or
possessing guns were enacted by anti's, but the restrictions listed in
this years DOW publications aren't the origin, they merely reflect
compliance with the existing law for all activities in the state. In
other words, they aren't a product of DOW designed to restrict the
poor ex-con from enjoying hunting.
Which brings me to another issue, near and dear to my heart. The
concern for CONVICTED felons seems somewhat misdirected. A close
friend of mine, ex-cop, ex-state patrol, ex-military OSI, often says
that the only reason someone is on trial is because they are
guilty--he's referring to the difficulty in apprehending, then gaining
indictment, then getting past plea bargains, then getting a DA to
prosecute, then finally getting to court. At that point only about 3%
of perpetrators ever come to justice.
Now, to worry that the DOW is picking on convicted felons seems like
some misplace sympathy. I can waste my energies on non-resident
license fees or herd management or mis-managed drawings or chronic
wasting disease or in-line vs primitive muzzle-loaders or slob
hunters--I don't need to waste my sympathies on convicted felons, even
if they only beat their wives a little bit and copped a plea.
Ed Rasimus *** Peak Computing Magazine
Fighter Pilot (ret) *** (http://peak-computing.com)
*** Ziff-Davis Interactive
*** (http://www.zdnet.com)