APNewsBreak: Gun law based on flawed estimate

[Spoonman]

go figure, a gun grabber law based on flawed information. nothing they spew is ever close to accurate



APNewsBreak: Gun law based on flawed estimate

DENVER (AP) — A law expanding background check requirements on Colorado gun sales has been in effect for about a year, and an Associated Press analysis of state data compiled during that span shows the projected impact was vastly overstated in a key budget report.





The discovery has prompted a prominent Democratic lawmaker to question whether the Legislature misallocated millions of taxpayer dollars based on the flawed estimate, which has provided an opportunity for Republicans to resume attacks over regulation that already has come at great political cost to Colorado liberals.

Democrats pushed the proposal into law last year as part of a package of gun restrictions meant to improve safety after devastating mass shootings. Lawmakers drafting the background check requirement, aimed at keeping firearms away from those with a criminal history, relied on information from a non-partisan research arm of the Legislature that predicted about 420,000 new reviews over the first two years. Accordingly, they budgeted about $3 million to the agency that conducts the checks to handle the anticipated surge of work.

But after a year of operating under the new system, Colorado Bureau of Investigations officials have performed only about 13,600 reviews considered a result of the new law — about 7 percent of the estimated first year total.

 

[Mad Scientist]

How else can they pass a Law unless they say that the sky is falling?

But hey, people fall for it so they do it.

 

[Jughead]

The funding increase, CBI officials say, has gone to hiring and operating expenses. Spokeswoman Susan Medina told the AP that about a dozen full-time employee positions have been filled since the increase, but that "the full authorized staff was not implemented."

Medina says the agency has funding for about 14 more full-time employee positions that have gone unfilled. It wasn't clear how much of the $3 million allocation has gone unspent.

If they predicted 420,000 reviews, and in reality only performed 13,600, then they obviously have too much manpower. They had predicted about 26 full time positions, and have filled 12 of those. Since they overestimated the work and really only have to do under 4% of the work which was initially predicted, then they only require 4% of the staff. That amounts to 1 employee. They need to cut 11 jobs. Those who will lose their jobs can thank lawmakers who made the flawed estimate, as well as democrats who pushed the law through.