Brauchler “Happy” to Break the Law to Carry His Gun into a Theater that Bans Guns

(Law-breaking law enforcement? – Promoted by Colorado Pols)

George Brauchler.

Arapahoe-County area District Attorney George Brauchler says he doesn’t care if a business, like a movie theater, bans concealed weapons from the premises.

He’s “happy” to violate the law and bring his concealed weapon into the theater anyway, he told Greeley’s KCOL guest host Karen Kataline Aug. 13.

Brauchler: I’m not a fan of the Gun Free Zones, and in fact, I mean, I will tell you that I violate that all the time. I carry concealed all the time.
Kateline [facetiously]:  Don’t admit that, George!
Brauchler:  I’m going to admit it – all the time! I feel completely undeterred.  And again, someone may say, ‘Oh, you’re violating—.’  No. Listen, I’m going to protect myself where I think it appropriate. Now, if I were [to be] stopped by law enforcement and confronted and have I committed a crime? [I] probably have!  [I’m] happy to own that.  But I’m not going let someone else disarm me under those circumstances.

Brauchler has bragged about his willingness to flout gun-free zones multiple times in radio interviews, usually pointing to the example of going to the movies with his family.

“It’s tough,” Brauchler said on KNUS following the Las Vegas massacre, when he was asked what citizens can do about mass shootings. “I think there is a combination of things. I mean, I’ll tell you that me, personally, since the Aurora theater case, I have not gone to the movies with my family without me carrying concealed.
“And I’ll plainly concede that there are probably several theaters that have said, ‘You can’t carry concealed here.’ And I have disregarded that, because I am never going to put myself in a position to not have options.”

But this week’s comment was different insofar as he stated directly that he’d be happy to break the law to do so, which is a notable comment from one of Colorado’s top law enforcement officials.

Brauchler, who briefly ran for Colorado governor then attorney general last year, did not return a call requesting an explanation on why he thinks he can choose the laws he wants to abide by–or why he thinks he’d “probably” be breaking the law by carrying his concealed weapon into a gun-free zone.

As a district attorney, Brauchler is considered a “peace officer” under Colorado law (§ 16-2.5-132, 16-2.5-101), responsible for law enforcement and authorized to carry a gun while performing duties. It has not been determined by this reporter whether Brauchler needs to be or is “post-certified,” and therefore allowed to carry a concealed gun anywhere he wants. This may depend on employee guidelines issued by Colorado’s 18th Judicial District or by the Colorado judicial system.

Brauchler doesn’t appear to care what the law is or how it is interpreted, as he’d break the law anyway given — as he puts it — his need to “protect myself where I think it appropriate.”

Brauchler prosecuted the Aurora theater shooter, failing to convince three jurors that he should be put to death. So it’s possible that Brauchler’s willingness to break the law by bringing his gun into a theater is derived from his experience in that horrific case.

The Aurora theater was a gun-free zone, and gun proponents believe lives would have been saved if theater goers were armed.

Gun safety advocates say it’s likely more people would have died in the chaotic crossfire.

Also in his KCOL interview this week, Brauchler defended potential gun safety laws, saying, “I’d like to figure out, do we have the ability to use the law to protect people and at the same time protect the constitution?  I think that’s possible.  If the answer is, ‘That’s not possible, we could never ever even have a conversation about a law that might somehow have the word ‘firearm’ in it’ – then that is crack smoke crazy!”

But it’s clear Brauchler then for Color won’t obey a law saying he can’t carry his gun into a theater. 

7 Shares

39 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. MADCO says:

    who has standing to violate his carry permit?

    I thought one of the black letter rules was that a permit holder would lose the permit if the violate the law about carrying.

    I mean, not an elected office holder at the airport or driving dwi, but you know, other people.

    • Diogenesdemar says:

      That’s what’s wrong with this country . . . 

      . . . too very little illegal about being a dickish asshole!  (. . . and for every “good guy with a gun” there’s about 17,354 of these.)

      It’d need to be filed as trespass, and the property owner would have to file a complaint and press charges (and find a prosecutor willing to take the case). Someone named Anschutz or Mizel might have a chance of making it stick; lower life forms, not so much. The defendant, if convicted, would probably get somewhere between a judge’s sternly wagging finger and a wink, up to life; depending on extenuating circumstances — complexion, musical tastes, hairstyle, bank account balances, etc.

       

      • MADCO says:

        Oh, puhleaze

        Are you really saying that now, in addition to driving, standing with hands up, walking home from 7/11 with candy and sugar water, that it's somehow a problem to posses a gun while not white?

        sounds about right

         

        thoughts and prayers. thoughts and prayers. Excelsior now!

      • MichaelBowmanMichaelBowman says:

        The Aurora theater was a gun-free zone, and gun proponents believe lives would have been saved if theater goers were armed.

        …and in a Wal-Matt full of Texans not a single good guy with a gun slowed that madman down. 

        • Negev says:

          You may want to blame Walmart for that

          • MichaelBowmanMichaelBowman says:

            So they’re upset that Wal-Mart wants them to confirm they have a license? (you’ll notice I mentioned “good guy with a gun” which implies he’s a law-abiding citizen. The bad guys with a gun can go shop at the Dollar Store after they’ve grabbed a bucket of chicken at KFC).

            • Negev says:

              Walmart is not required by law to check licenses and has proactively decided to add this restriction on their own behalf. I'm speculating that a Texan gun nut would find this "infringement" and frequent other locations less likely to restrict further than law requires.

              • MichaelBowmanMichaelBowman says:

                Again, deflection.  "good guys with a gun" upset that someone that's accommodating them in their retail establishment, effectively-public-setting actually prove they show they are in compliance with the law?  I'm guessing most Americans could care less about hurting their infringement fefes.  As you know I'm not anti gun.  I'm anti-gun nutter, pro-background checks, pro-red flag and pro-'we don't need military-like assault weapons in the general populace" – just like the overwhelming majority of Americans. 

  2. DavidThi808DavidThi808 says:

    Everything else aside, having a "good guy with a gun" in a dark theater means more casualties. In a very tense situation where things are happening very quickly and you are unclear on who is doing what – it'll mean more random deaths.

    People have this fantasy that they'll clearly know what to do and they'll be calm enough to fire cleanly and accurately. Wrong on both counts.

    This idiot is not only breaking the law, he's endangering himself and all those around him – including his family.

    • Negev says:

      One could argue that a large percentage of mass shootings occur in gun free zones, effectively making these areas attractive to active shooter scenarios. Eliminating the gun free zone would reasonably reduce the shooters incentive to gravitate towards a location that offers such a target rich environment, regardless of whether there was an armed person able to defend from such an attack or not. 

      • Duke CoxDuke Cox says:

        Fail.

        Mass shooters look for a crowd. 

        They don't really care about other guns. Most are looking for an SBC anyway.

        • Negev says:

          That's odd you say that when recent events show, in the actual words of the shooter, the exact opposite:

          Remember: it is not cowardly to pick low hanging fruit. AKA Don’t attack heavily guarded areas to fulfill your super soldier COD fantasy. Attack low security targets. Even though you might out gun a security guard or police man, they likely beat you in armor, training and numbers. Do not throw away your life on an unnecessarily dangerous target. If a target seems too hot, live to fight another day. 

           

          • Diogenesdemar says:

            Oh, . . . 

            . . . so, you’re saying that these not-exactly-good guys-with-guns mass murderers aren’t predominantly the mentally ill? They’re cold, calculating, rational, methodical, and reasonable????

            Just angry little self-important and self-deluded men with ridiculously easy access to way too much deadly firepower, kinda’ like maybe, oh I dunno’, Brauchler? You? . . .

          • Dayton shooter: cops right there. Gilmore: cops right there. And in El Paso, despite your note about Walmart's policy, anyone in that store who wasn't a visiting Mexican national could have been carrying.

            David's right – the main considerations are target density and appropriateness to "the cause". Sure, if you're planning something and have choices, a soft target is better, but if you're determined you'll shoot the school resource officer standing guard at the door before he knows you're armed and to Hell with the world.

            • Negev says:

              One must consider which mass shooter wasn't planning or didn't have choices before suggesting soft targets are not the preferred location. 

              • Keep burying your head in the sand until Dudley come to rescue you.

              • Duke CoxDuke Cox says:

                Nonsense.                                      

              • Gilpin Guy says:

                The shooter in El Paso was planning his murders along with the one in Las Vegas.  They can only carry out their crimes if they have accomplices like Negev to front for them.  I thought all lives were precious to the Neg but apparently he is cool with more human sacrifices and the shedding of innocent blood so that he can masturbate with his favorite toys and worship his phallic symbol like any other cultist.  What a dipshit enabler.

                • Negev says:

                  Perhaps a picture will help you determine if gun free zones play a role in the decision making of a mass shooter. 

                  • VoyageurVoyageur says:

                    I suspect only a handful of schools are free-fire zones to begin with.  If just 1 percent are free fire zones and 3.8 percent of shootings occur there, then free fire zones are 3.8 times as dangerous as gun-free ones.

                     

                  • Diogenesdemar says:

                    You have a chronic bad habit of posting up some exceptionally craptacular excerpts, but almost never providing any of the citation sourcing? . . . 

                    (. . . perhaps because on those few occasions where you have, you had your bilge water statistics and conclusions flushed right back at you?)

                    See also the list of deadliest mass shootings in the US here:
                    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shootings_in_the_United_States. Let’s see how you get to 96% with these?

                    (PS: Given the testimony of ijut Brauchler, and assuming he’s not the one and only Lone Ijut, how can you even claim to know that anyplace is a “gun free” area?)

                    • Negev says:

                      My link to the source was in my post above, which you most likely did not take the effort to review, so I'll put it here again and post the picture in there to make it a bit more simple for you. If Wikipedia is the source you would like to run with I'm happy to oblige. 

                       

                      Now, I count 15 out of 19 of your list, assuming that gun free zones started in 1990 so your old ones are before the phenomenon, so that's about 79%. Is that a difference from 96%? Yeah it is. Is it the vast majority? Yea, I am going to say so strictly because I have seen the 67% number thrown around here as the "vast majority of Americans want to ban assault weapons", so I think if you can use that, so can I. 

                      Your source also indicates 

                       mass shootings accounted for less than two-tenths of 1% (0.2%) of homicides in the United States between 2000 and 2016.

                      If you are so up in arms so to speak on this issue of mass shooting knowing that a 100% elimination of it will reduce gun deaths by .2%, it should only take another 5-7 generations before your success is achieved. 

                      But keep up the effort. I will post your progress on Wikiwink

                      Edit to add: your source also indicates 48% of the mass shootings were completed with semi automatic assault rifles. Is that a vast majority to you as well?

  3. harrydobyharrydoby says:

    Firearm-Americans speak out

  4. spaceman65 says:

    Hmm.  Seems like the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel should have a little chat with George.

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account


You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.