The real motivation behind the DOJ’s threat to Colorado over assault weapons
Re: “Assault weapons: DOJ threatens city, state on bans,” May 5 news story
Regarding President Donald Trump’s move to sue Colorado over its existing gun regulations and his obviously vindictive indictment of James Comey, I have an observation.
These are yet additional moves by the administration to deflect our attention from other, more important U.S. and world events (has anyone heard of the war in Iran and its horrible human and economic costs?). I feel bad for even writing about these subjects because it shows that I am falling for this deflection too. However, I write this letter to offer a suggestion.
Denver, the state of Colorado, and James Comey are most likely incurring a great deal of expense in defending these frivolous actions. When the cases are either thrown out or defeated, Denver, Colorado and Comey should be compensated for these legal expenses. This compensation should not be paid from the Justice Department coffer, which is taxpayer money, but from Donald Trump himself. The man understands only money, and he needs to pay for this show of manipulation and impunity.
Mark Edward Geyer, Denver
It’s about the Constitution
I have read a great deal about Colorado’s liberal Democrat politicians passing unenforceable, “feel-good” laws that clearly violate the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment. Didn’t these politicians swear to support the U.S. Constitution when they took their oaths of office?
There is such a thing as the that places federal law and the U.S. Constitution “over” any state’s infringement of the people’s Second Amendment rights.
RD VanOrsdale, Broomfield
Crime-solving doesn’t require invasive technologies and erosion of privacy
Re: “Police opposition kills Flock camera data limits,” April 30 news story
Dear Gov. Polis,
I strongly oppose any policy or rhetoric that treats mass surveillance as a necessary tool for public safety. Suggesting that law enforcement needs to monitor the movements of the entire population to solve crimes is both misleading and historically false. Crimes were investigated and solved long before governments had the ability to collect pervasive location and behavioral data on ordinary people — and they are still solved today without it.
The absence of mass surveillance does not “hamper” law enforcementap ability to investigate crimes. Effective policing relies on targeted, evidence-based investigations, warrants, due process, and professional skill — not on tracking everyone, regardless of suspicion. Equating blanket surveillance with public safety conflates convenience with necessity.
Collecting data on the entire citizenry treats everyone as a suspect by default and undermines fundamental privacy rights without proven benefits. Public safety and civil liberties are not in conflict here. We can support lawful, effective law enforcement while firmly rejecting indiscriminate surveillance of the public.
I urge you to clearly state that mass surveillance is not required for effective policing and to prioritize policies that respect privacy, constitutional limits, and the presumption of innocence.
Jeffrey Marquez, Thornton
To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.
