Log In


Reset Password
Opinion Editorial Cartoons Op-Ed Editorials Letters to the Editor

Procedural purity

Brown right to shoot down attempt at circumventing committee vote

There is little doubt that Rep. J. Paul Brown, R-Ignacio, holds his seat in part because of his stance on Colorado’s gun laws and, perhaps more pertinently, that of his predecessor, Mike McLachlan.

Brown is staunchly opposed to the suite of gun-related legislation passed in 2013, including a measure limiting ammunition magazine capacity to 15 rounds or fewer. McLachlan supported the bills and subsequently was the target of a recall campaign that, though unsuccessful, certainly influenced November’s race between the two men. Given that history, Brown’s Wednesday vote against a Republican colleague’s attempt to force a floor vote repealing the magazine ban was both courageous and appreciated.

The issue arose when Rep. Justin Everett, R-Littleton, made a motion to amend the House journal and call for a vote on Senate Bill 175, a measure that would have repealed the magazine ban. However, the House State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee killed the bill Monday, therefore a floor vote was inappropriate by any standard. House Speaker Dickie Lee Hullinghorst, D-Boulder, agreed and ruled Everett’s motion out of order. Everett then challenged Hullinghorst’s ruling, prompting a vote. Brown was one of just five Republicans who supported the speaker’s decision. He was absolutely right to do so.

Brown’s vote supporting Hullinghorst and the procedural integrity she was defending by denying Everett’s request has nothing to do with his position on gun control in general, or the large-capacity magazine ban specifically. Brown was a sponsor of SB 175 and repeatedly has reiterated his strong position against Colorado’s gun-control measures. There is absolutely no question as to Brown’s beliefs about the matter, and that particularly strong stance makes his support for Hullinghorst all the more admirable.

SB 175 was killed, fair and square, in committee. Had it been successful, Everett’s attempt to override that committee action through a procedural sleight of hand would have placed the entire legislative process at risk. That hardly is conducive to effective lawmaking, regardless of the topic.

No matter how strongly lawmakers from both parties feel about the magazine-capacity law, it is the law and became such after the measure was proposed, considered in both chambers of the Legislature and signed by Gov. John Hickenlooper. It had serious political ramifications for several of its supporters; former Senate President John Morse, D-Colorado Springs, and Sen. Angie Giron, D-Pueblo, both lost recall elections, and McLachlan’s re-election efforts were thwarted at least in part by his gun-legislation votes. Those political costs, influenced by citizens who opposed the legislation, do not translate into permission to repeal it, willy-nilly. In his attempt to do so, Everett did his cause no favor.

Brown, however, took the high road when he need not have. As a minority party member in the House, Brown’s vote of support for Hullinghorst was unnecessary for her ruling against Everett to stand. Further, as a sponsor of the measure Everett was attempting to resurrect, Brown bucked his political interests in favor of procedural purity. He deserves praise for doing so. Instead, Everett laughably has questioned Brown’s support for the magazine-ban repeal: “(Brown) can have his opinion on whatever he wants, but I think this is a direct reflection on whether you support SB 175 or not,” he said.

That clearly is not the case, and Everett should have known better than to raise such an absurd question and to have attempted in the first place to undermine the work of a House committee in the interest of grandstanding. Brown took an admirable stand in a ridiculous circumstance.



Reader Comments