Latest news with #PuebloBoardofCountyCommissioners
Yahoo
03-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Pueblo County commissioners urge Colorado governor to veto semiautomatic gun control bill
The Pueblo Board of County Commissioners passed a resolution April 1 opposing Colorado Senate Bill 3, which would ban the manufacture and drastically restrict the sale of certain semiautomatic firearms that accept detachable ammunition magazines. SB-3 would prohibit Coloradans from buying most semiautomatic rifles as well as some semiautomatic shotguns and pistols, unless they get approval from the local county sheriff and complete up to a dozen hours of training administered by Colorado Parks and Wildlife. The bill passed the Colorado Legislature by a vote of 19-15 on March 28, with three Democrats, including Sen. Nick Hinrichsen of Pueblo, joining every Senate Republican in opposition to the bill, according to the Colorado Sun. Hinrichsen told the Chieftain Wednesday he opposed the bill because he feels it's the wrong approach to the problem of gun violence. "We have a high-capacity magazine ban that's been in existence for about 12 years now -- I support that, and I think we have a mechanism to enforce that now that didn't exist in the past, with the CBI and licensing bill that was passed last year," he said. "I think that is the appropriate way of addressing the issue of the types of firearms we're seeing used in mass shootings without infringing Second Amendment rights." Hinrichsen said SB-3 took a "haphazard, arbitrary" approach in which traditional hunting firearms would be exempted from the new law, and said he believes there are "gaps" in the training element, such as how active-duty or honorably discharged veterans and law enforcement officers, despite past training on the safe use of firearms, would not be exempted from the requirement. "I think there are just so many gaps if you're going to go this route. It's costly and unnecessary, and for those reasons I was opposed," Hinrichsen said. The local BOCC resolution, spearheaded by Republican Board Chairman Zach Swearingen, urged Gov. Jared Polis to veto the bill on several grounds, including violation of the Second Amendment, an undue burden on local gun stores, and a burden to the sheriff in enforcement, as the sheriff would be required to fingerprint and conduct background checks on applicants to determine if they meet the criteria to receive a firearms course card without any additional funding or resources. The bill would also cost the state an estimated $1.4 million in the first year and $500,000 per year after to maintain, according to Swearingen's resolution. Swearingen argued that the bill would drive many gun stores out of business or out of state, and would require "law-abiding citizens to jump through hoops and pay significant fees in order to exercise their Second Amendment rights." "There's a lot of unconstitutional pieces to (SB-3)," Swearingen said. "It is already hurting mom-and-pop gun shops, I've already heard several have moved out of state. By our Constitution, (gun ownership) is a right. You are forcing people to take a test for a right. And that's a slippery slope." Swearingen stated he believed the bill, if signed by Polis, would likely be overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court, but it would likely take four to five years to get there, at which point the damage would already be done. He further argued that the Second Amendment was "not intended for hunting," but for people to defend themselves and their families, including from the government. Fellow Republican board member Paula McPheeters also supported the resolution. "As a fellow gun owner, I know I can't rely on anyone coming to protect me, and that's inherent in the Constitution," McPheeters said. "The Second Amendment states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Federal law always supersedes state law, and state law is trying to supersede the Second Amendment... As a gun owner, as a citizen, a commissioner, and a woman, I oppose any infringement on my right to firearms, so I support this and will be a yes vote." Commissioner Miles Lucero, the board's lone Democrat, said he opposed SB-3, but also opposed the resolution as written, stating that even as a gun owner himself, he believes the Second Amendment can be regulated. "It's crazy to me to say that the founding fathers wrote the Second Amendment of the Constitution with the knowledge that we'd have these horrific killing machines at the disposal of the public," Lucero said. "If we want to revise this resolution to say it's a significant cost at a time when the state doesn't have money, if there's implementation hurdles, there's going to be legal challenges, all of that is true." "I'm not fully on board with the idea that exemptions don't apply to law enforcement officials or honorably discharged veterans," Lucero continued. "I don't think they should have to go through these training courses. And to be abundantly clear, this bill doesn't say you can't own these firearms, it says you have to take a course to do so." Lucero pointed out that firearms are the leading cause of death for U.S. children under the age of 19 since 2020. After some additional back and forth, commissioners passed the resolution 2-1 along party lines. In a statement to the Chieftain, Pueblo County Sheriff David Lucero also expressed his opposition to the bill. "I opposed this bill as it places another level of bureaucracy on county sheriffs," Lucero said. "It is also disparate because to purchase a firearm, you would now have to pay the sheriff to run a background check and pass and then the sheriff must issue a permit which would be valid for five years. Then, you have to go purchase the firearm and pay for another background check through Instacheck before you can purchase it. "A firearm itself is already cost-prohibitive and expensive, so this adds multiple levels of financial impacts in order to possess or own a firearm," he said. "It is almost like you have to be part of a special, exclusive club to have a firearm. This bill doesn't do anything for law-abiding citizens who want to legally own a firearm, instead, it has the potential to fuel black market sales for criminals, who won't follow this law anyway. Law-abiding citizens in Pueblo County love their firearms, and this is yet another layer that doesn't strengthen public safety but puts more restrictions on them." More in local news: What to know about fentanyl in Pueblo and the health department's efforts to track it Questions, comments, or story tips? Contact Justin at jreutterma@ Follow him on X, formally known as Twitter, @jayreutter1. Support local news, subscribe to The Pueblo Chieftain at This article originally appeared on The Pueblo Chieftain: Pueblo leaders urge Colorado governor to veto gun control bill
Yahoo
04-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Pueblo County approves additional $20K for sheriff legal fees in lawsuit against union
Leaders with different unions around Pueblo held a silent protest during the Pueblo County Commissioners meeting on Feb. 25, 2025, outside of the Pueblo County Government Building. (Courtesy of Brad Riccillo) The Pueblo Board of County Commissioners approved an additional $20,000 to go toward legal fees for the local sheriff in a lawsuit he filed against the union representing his deputies. Pueblo Sheriff David Lucero, a Democrat, filed a lawsuit in December that argues a county sheriff is not included under Colorado's statutory definition of a county, as sheriff is its own elected constitutional office. The 2022 Colorado law granting collective bargaining rights to government employees in many counties therefore does not apply to his office, Lucero argued. The Colorado Department of Labor and Employment rejected that argument once in an administrative proceeding and again after Lucero appealed, ruling that he must bargain with members of the International Brotherhood of Police Officers Local 837, the state-recognized union for Pueblo Sheriff's Office employees. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX Pueblo County had already allocated $25,000 for outside counsel for Lucero, meaning that with its Feb. 25 decision to provide more money the county has approved a total of $45,000 to back the sheriff's lawsuit. In a statement, Lucero said he appreciates the board's support. 'This is something that affects all the Sheriffs, not just Pueblo County,' Lucero said in a statement. 'I have never been anti-union, but there are holes in this legislation and questions that need to be answered, and I'm hoping the courts can answer those questions.' On Feb. 18, the Colorado attorney general's office filed a partial motion to dismiss Lucero's lawsuit, arguing the court does not have the jurisdiction to determine whether the law applies to the sheriff's office and deferred to the Colorado Administrative Procedures Act. Lucero filed the lawsuit in Denver District Court, where Judge Andrew McCallin is overseeing the case. The next step is for the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment to file a response to the initial complaint. Brad Riccillo, president of the IBPO Local 837, said he's encouraged that the attorney general 'continues to stand up for workers and workers rights, and they're pretty committed to defending this law.' He said several unions from around the county participated in a 'silent protest' outside of the county commissioner meeting when they voted to approve the additional $20,000 in legal fees. Lucero said the protest had 'a lack of support,' which he said didn't surprise him given 'their declining membership and false narratives about me suing my deputies.' In that meeting, commissioners voted 2-1 in favor of additional funding, with Commissioner Miles Lucero, a Democrat with no relation to the sheriff, voting against the measure. I knew that this was going to be difficult, but I never thought I would get this much pushback ... I never thought I would have the sheriff name my union in a lawsuit. I never thought two out of three county commissioners who were 'law enforcement-friendly and supporters' would be so hell bent to see us fail. – Brad Riccillo, president of the IBPO Local 837 Both Republican commissioners, Paula McPheeters and Zach Swearingen, argued that the board needs to support their county sheriff and that the lawsuit will help provide clarity on how the law applies to sheriffs. 'In the end, public safety is the focus here. Not squabbles between the union and what they believe their role should be,' McPheeters said. 'I want clarification so we can move on and do the work of the county. This is to me a distraction, it's created division in the sheriff's department, and I would just like to see it resolved so that we can move on. There is a union, they can negotiate, but there needs to be some understanding and the only way we get it is legally.' Miles Lucero said he agrees with the need to support the sheriff in defending against unfair labor practices, but that's not what the $20,000 the board approved is for, since the sheriff pursued the lawsuit. 'If I thought the sheriff was on the defensive and he needed our financial support, that's a different story,' Miles Lucero said. 'That's not the case for this particular matter.' Some testified to commissioners that the union continuously filing unfair labor practice complaints leads to more county time and money spent fighting those complaints. 'The way that I feel about that is if you continue to break the law, we're going to continue to hold you accountable for it,' Riccillo said. Riccillo said he's 'been personally attacked' at the county commissioner meetings by non-union members and other staff at the sheriff's office. Jesus Burgos, a deputy sheriff, testified that he's supportive of the sheriff and that any job is 'what you make it,' and anyone unhappy in their position needs to 'look at what you're doing, not only what your employer is doing.' He said the union is 'trying to bully.' 'Personally I would like to see the union thrive, but I don't believe it's going to happen fairly or ethically until there's different people running it, in my opinion,' Burgos said. Despite the ongoing legal battle, Riccillo said the union and the sheriff's office have made progress in the bargaining process. He said they've temporarily agreed on about half of the articles needed to finalize a contract. Riccillo said leading the union through the bargaining and legal processes has been the 'hardest thing I have ever had to do in my life.' 'I knew that this was going to be difficult, but I never thought I would get this much pushback,' he said. 'I never thought I would have the sheriff name my union in a lawsuit. I never thought two out of three county commissioners who were 'law enforcement-friendly and supporters' would be so hell bent to see us fail.' SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
