Colorado Dems vote against bill making indecent exposure to kids a felony because it could be 'used to ban drag shows,' 'target' trans individuals



Most Colorado Democratic lawmakers shot down a bill on the House floor on Saturday that would increase criminal penalties for indecent exposure in front of a minor to a felony.

One of the 27 Democratic lawmakers who voted against the measure claimed that, if passed, the legislation could be "used to ban drag shows" and "target" transgender individuals.

Under current Colorado law, a first offense of indecent exposure is a class one misdemeanor. The proposed bill, HB23-1135, titled "Penalty For Indecent Exposure In View Of Minors," would increase the penalty for indecent exposure in front of a minor to a class 6 felony.

Despite the bill being introduced to the state House by Democratic Representatives Dafna Michaelson Jenet and Shannon Bird, 27 members of the party voted against the measure while Republicans unanimously supported the bill.

On Saturday, Democratic Representative Leslie Herod accused the bill of attempting to "target" transgender individuals and shut down drag shows.

"These types of laws have been used to ban drag shows, to target individuals who use the restroom — the sex they identify with, a public restroom — to charge them with felony charges. I'm very concerned about the attacks against the transgender community that are happening across the country," Herod claimed.

"When I initially read this bill, it did not even come to mind for me, either, as an advocate—but as I've looked at the bills, and as I've talked to my colleagues who are fighting these types of bills across the country, it's very clear to me that the language is very much mirrored in some of the laws that have been used to target members of our community because of who they are," she added.

\u201c\ud83d\udea8\ud83d\udea8 27 DEMOCRATS VOTE AGAINST MAKING INDECENT EXPOSURE TO MINORS A CLASS 6 FELONY!\n\nA Democrat attacked the bill for \u201ctargeting\u201d the transgender community in her dissent. #copolitics #coleg \n\n\ud83d\udcdcBILL: https://t.co/Lgle6vX25U\n\n\ud83c\udfa7Listen for yourself:\u201d
— Colorado House Republicans (@Colorado House Republicans) 1682789870

In response to Herod, Bird argued that the bill received no pushback from local LGBT+ organizations.

Bird stated that the legislation "is about protecting children, making sure that any sex crime against a child is punished."

"There is no intent to harm any member of any community," Bird added.

According to Deputy Chief of Staff for the Colorado House Republicans Roger Hudson, during a previous reading of the bill, Democratic lawmakers filibustered against the measure for almost three hours.

Despite the opposition, the legislation passed with amendments.

Over the weekend, Bird posted on Twitter announcing the passage of the legislation.

"In Colorado, we protect children. Yesterday we passed my bill to hold adults appropriately accountable when they expose themselves [or] masturbate in front of children. This is the only sex crime against kids that is not a felony. Our bill will change that," Bird wrote.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Second Amendment advocacy groups file lawsuits against 2 more Colorado cities and Boulder County for unconstitutional restrictions on ‘assault weapons’ and ‘large-capacity’ magazines



On Thursday, Second Amendment groups filed lawsuits against two Colorado cities and one county after local leaders attempted to restrict gun rights, reported the Associated Press.

Rocky Mountain Gun Owners and the National Foundation for Gun Rights are suing the cities of Boulder and Louisville, as well as Boulder County, for trying to place heavy restrictions on semi-automatic firearms and magazine capacity. In the complaint, the advocacy groups addressed the use of the term “assault weapon” in Boulder’s new code.

The lawsuit stated, “The term ‘assault weapon’ as used in the Code is not a technical term used in the firearms industry or community for firearms commonly available to civilians. Instead, the term is a rhetorically charged political term meant to stir the emotions of the public against those persons who choose to exercise their constitutional right to possess certain semi-automatic firearms that are commonly owned by millions of law-abiding American citizens for lawful purposes.”

\u201cBREAKING: RMGO just filed lawsuits in federal court against the cities of Louisville and Boulder \u2013 Boulder County also faces a similar lawsuit from RMGO. \n\nVIEW OUR COMPLAINTS: https://t.co/u2rtTwBc4K / https://t.co/jHwnwhEoBP / https://t.co/7Kk0CIoiAh\n\n#copolitics #coleg\u201d
— Rocky Mountain Gun Owners (@Rocky Mountain Gun Owners) 1660844078

The legislation passed in June by Boulder limits the capacity of magazines to 10 rounds. The lawsuit also addressed this, stating, “The Code’s characterization of these magazines as ‘large capacity’ is a misnomer. Magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds are standard capacity magazines.”

The Second Amendment advocacy groups also sued the city of Superior, Colorado, for trying to enact similar laws. In July, U.S. District Court Judge Raymond Moore responded to the lawsuit by temporarily blocking the town’s new gun restrictions. Moore stated that “the Court is unaware of historical precedent that would permit a governmental entity to entirely ban a type of weapon that is commonly used by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, whether in an individual’s home or in public.”

The executive director of Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, Taylor Rhodes, declared that “it doesn’t matter how big or how small the localities are — if you pass unconstitutional gun control, we will sue you.”

Boulder County officials released a statement on Thursday in response to the lawsuit stating, “On Aug. 2, the Boulder County Board of County Commissioners adopted five ordinances designed to prevent gun violence. One of those ordinances prohibited the sale and purchase of assault weapons, large capacity magazines, and trigger activators. The county learned today that a group filed a lawsuit challenging that ordinance. Boulder County will defend against the lawsuit and demonstrate that the assault weapons ordinance is constitutionally sound.”

A spokesperson for the city of Boulder stated that the town could not comment on pending litigation, reported the Associated Press. It also reported that Louisville could not be reached for comment on the matter.