Opinion ID: 2595483
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Armstrong and Collins

Text: Armstrong and Collins list a number of terms they say should either have been defined in the titles and summary, or are defined wrongly in the titles. The first is gun show vendor, which we have already held was not defined misleadingly in the titles and summary. They also object that the titles and summary do not define gun show promoter. They claim that the commonsense meaning of promoter conflicts with the definition in the Initiative since a promoter would not automatically include a person who manages or operates an event. We disagree. The titles and summary outline the promoter's responsibilities under the Initiative  to arrange for the presence of a licensed gun dealer and to post notice of the background check requirement. This was sufficient. Armstrong and Collins next challenge the Board's decisions not to define background check and prospective firearms transferees, neither of which is defined in the Initiative. However, the Board is not usually required to define a term that is undefined in the proposed measure. See In re Proposed Initiative 1996-6, 917 P.2d 1277, 1281-82 (Colo.1996) (We held that the phrase `strong public trust doctrine' need not be defined in the title or submission clause since it was undefined in the initiative itself, In re Proposed Initiative on Water Rights, 877 P.2d at 327, just as `public trust doctrine' is not defined in the present Initiative. However, while the Board could have stated that the phrase was undefined, its failure to do so is not fatal.); In re Proposed Initiative on Water Rights, 877 P.2d at 327 (omitting strong from strong public trust doctrine in titles was not error even though phrase was contained in the initiative itself; the term was not defined in the initiative and voters would be informed of the essential concept of the proposed amendment). According to the petitioners, prospective firearms transferees is not a term of everyday usage, and is not easily understood except by lawyers. But, as the respondents point out, it is drawn directly from the Initiative, which does not further define the term. See In re Proposed Initiative on Water Rights, 877 P.2d at 327. It was not error to not define the term in the titles. Armstrong and Collins contend that the titles hide the fact that licensed gun dealers who obtain the background checks will be required to keep records of the checks, and that this results from the Board's failure to refer to other state statutes in the titles and summary that contain the recordkeeping requirements. However, the Board is not required to explain the relationship between the Initiative and other statutes or constitutional provisions. See In re Proposed Ballot Initiative on Parental Rights, 913 P.2d at 1132. Finally, the petitioners allege that the titles are confusing because they state that the Initiative would prohibit transfer of a firearm if a background check has not been obtained by a licensed gun dealer, when, in fact, the measure would prohibit such a transfer if the background check was not obtained and the CBI did not approve the transfer. As we have stressed above, the General Assembly has directed that the titles be brief. The titles and summary are not required to address every provision of a proposed measure. In this case, however, any ambiguity is cured by the summary, which states: The measure provides that a gun show vendor, prior to the transfer or attempted transfer of a firearm at a gun show, shall require a background check on the prospective transferee and approval of the transfer from the Colorado Bureau of Investigation.  (emphasis added.) The Board was well within its discretion when it chose to place the requirement of CBI approval in the summary rather than the titles.