Opinion ID: 2595483
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Herpin

Text: Herpin first claims that the titles do not reflect the true intent of the Initiative because they do not define gun show. According to Herpin, this was error because gun show as it is used in the Initiative is broader (it encompasses virtually any place where firearms transactions might occur) than its traditional meaning (events put on by promoters who charge both an admission fee and a fee to persons selling firearms). The summary contains a definition of gun show, however. The titles are not required to include definitions of terms unless the terms adopt a new or controversial legal standard which would be of significance to all concerned with the Initiative. In re Proposed Election Reform Amend., 852 P.2d 28, 34 (Colo.1993). Section 1-40-106(3)(b) requires ballot titles to be brief. The Board was within its discretion when it defined gun show in the summary but not the titles. In his answer brief, Herpin also alleges that the definition of gun show vendor in the titles and summary is incomplete and omits parts of the definition found in the Initiative. The titles and summary define a `gun show vendor' as any person who exhibits, offers for sale, or transfers a firearm at a gun show. Section 12-26.1-106(5) of the Initiative states: `Gun show vendor' means any person who exhibits, sells, offers for sale, transfers, or exchanges, any firearm at a gun show, regardless of whether the person arranges with a gun show promoter for a fixed location from which to exhibit, sell, offer for sale, transfer, or exchange any firearm. In order to satisfy the requirement of brevity, the Board condensed the definition of gun show vendor in the titles. The definition they retained is not clearly misleading and thus was within their discretion in setting the titles. See In re State Personnel Sys., 691 P.2d at 1125. Herpin also complains that the titles and summary are misleading because they do not define firearm, although, in his view, the Initiative defines the term in the broadest possible way. He asserts that while the Initiative excludes antique firearms from background checks, these firearms would still be used to define a gun show. The proponents contend that firearm is not a new or technical term. They also point out that the definition of firearm is taken verbatim from section 18-1-901(3)(h), 6 C.R.S. (1997) (provisions applicable to offenses generally). In response, Herpin points out that firearm is defined in two additional provisions of the state statutes: section 12-26-101(1)(a), 4 C.R.S. (1999) (regulating firearms dealers), and section 30-15-301(1), 9 C.R.S. (1999) (prohibiting the discharge of firearms in unincorporated areas). The three definitions are similar, however. In this case, the Board was within its discretion when it declined to define firearm in the titles and summary. Herpin's next objection is that nothing in the titles and summary mentions that the Initiative requires a background check on sales of firearms by unlicensed persons to licensed gun dealers, which is the opposite of current federal law. This misconceives the purpose of the titles and summary. The titles and summary are intended to alert the electorate to the salient characteristics of the proposed measure. They are not intended to address every conceivable hypothetical effect the Initiative may have if adopted by the electorate. See Tax Reform, 797 P.2d at 1289. As the proponents point out, the shorter version in the titles is adequate because (1) the commonly understood meaning of transfers includes both sells and exchanges, and the summary includes both sells and exchanges in the definition of gun show vendor; and (2) the omission of fixed location from the definition in the titles and summary is unnecessary  the titles and summary reflect the essential concept. Cf. In re Proposed Initiative on Water Rights, 877 P.2d 321, 327 (Colo.1994) (omission of strong from strong public trust doctrine in titles although phrase was contained in initiative itself was not error; the term was not defined in the initiative and voters would be informed of the essential concept of the proposed amendment).