Thirty Years Ago This Week: What might have been a rather innocuous primary election debate for Senate District 9 descended into furor when state Rep. Tom Ratterree, R-Colorado Springs, called himself a “statesman.”

“He’s a liar,” state Rep. Charles Duke, R-Colorado Springs, told The Colorado Statesman. “He’s also being charged with a felonious crime.”

District Attorney John Suthers was indeed investigating claims that Ratterree committed a felony by misrepresenting a public official. Duke had filed the complaint against Ratterree alleging that Ratterree had circulated a doctored “smear” sheet, printed on state Sen. Don Ament’s, R-Illiff, letterhead during the April 30 El Paso County Republican Party Assembly.

Duke alleged that Ratterree copied a personal note that he’d sent to Ament and added the title “Competence or Intimidation?” The sheet contained a paragraph allegedly written by Ament and a note from Duke expressing anger over Ament’s failure to support HB 91-239. The letter, Duke said, was in fact written by him in anger in 1991, but he didn’t believe that Ament had given his permission for copies to be circulated.

“I’ve chatted briefly with Ament,” said Duke. “We’re not the ‘bosomest’ of buddies … He admitted to me that he didn’t write the headline or the second paragraph, and didn’t authorize the use of his letterhead.”

Ament made a similar statement to the state attorney general’s office and Duke said he was spurred to take action because, “If you know about a felony, and you don’t report it, then you’re an accessory.”

Tom Brown, Ratterree’s campaign manager, issued a response. “Anyone who knows Tom Ratterree knows there’s no reason for him to stoop that low. We’re not running a trench-war type campaign.We’re running a campaign on the issues and we’re not given to knee-jerk reactions. We don’t respond. We don’t believe people want that type of character in their senator.”

Ten Years Ago: A U.S. District Court in Denver released a 50-page opinion upholding Colorado’s laws banning high-capacity ammunition magazines and the requirement of universal background checks.

Originally sheriffs from the majority of Colorado’s counties dominated the 30+ groups that filed the lawsuit against the measures, but Chief Judge Marcia S. Krieger ruled early on that sheriffs could not sue in their professional capacity. They could, however, still file suit as individuals.

Other plaintiffs were also ruled not to have standing because there was no evidence that the laws would harm them.

The majority of those who brought suit were groups representing firearms dealers, farmers, sportsmen and gun rights supporters. Krieger raised concerns with this, stating, “The Second Amendment protects a fundamental individual right, and it is not clear that entities have any rights protected by the Second Amendment.”

The lawsuit alleged that the magazine ban was so vague that it violated the people’s right to due process under the law and that the laws also violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by impeding disabled persons’ ability to self-defense.

In her ruling, Krieger said that the statute regarding high-capacity magazines did not prevent the people of Colorado from possessing semi-automatic weapons for defense.

“No evidence presented here suggests that the general ability of a person to defend him or herself is seriously diminished if magazines are limited to 15 rounds,” Krieger wrote. “The only limitation imposed is how frequently they must reload their weapons.”

Krieger wrote that it was the court’s job only to rule on whether legislation was constitutionally permissible and not to analyze the merits of the legislation.

Gov. John Hickenlooper applauded the attorney general’s office for their stellar defense of the state during the lawsuit.

Rachael Wright is the author of the Captain Savva Mystery series, with degrees in Political Science and History from Colorado Mesa University, and is a contributing writer to Colorado Politics and The Gazette.