Climb14er
March 15, 2003, 08:15 AM
Two passed the legislature and are waiting for the Gov's signature.
Been a long wait and it'll be good to have a CCW here in Colorado.
Been a long wait and it'll be good to have a CCW here in Colorado.
Colorado CCW Bills
If you enjoyed reading about "Colorado CCW Bills" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Standing Wolf
March 15, 2003, 08:38 PM
Most of Colorado has had CCW for years. Only Denver and Jefferson counties' residents haven't been able to obtain concealed firearms licenses.
One of these laws makes Colorado a shall issue state; the other prevents Denver and Jefferson counties from holding themselves above the law.
I'm sure Denver will sue, whine, snivel, weep, sue again, cry, sob, sue again, et cetera.
One of these laws makes Colorado a shall issue state; the other prevents Denver and Jefferson counties from holding themselves above the law.
I'm sure Denver will sue, whine, snivel, weep, sue again, cry, sob, sue again, et cetera.
Thumper
March 15, 2003, 08:44 PM
Any word on reciprocity with either of these Bills? My folks have a summer place outside of Salida. It would be nice to be legal when I'm up there.
Ian
March 15, 2003, 08:48 PM
Woohoo! Now when I go back home to Colorado at the end of the semester,
...I still won't be able to get a permit.:fire: See, I'm responsible enough here in Indiana because I'm 19. But when I walk across the border out of here, I sudenly undergo a serious personality change, and can't be trusted with a gun until I'm 21 </sarcasm>.
Not even the better of the two CO CCW bills bothered to notice that people under 21 have some rights too.
...I still won't be able to get a permit.:fire: See, I'm responsible enough here in Indiana because I'm 19. But when I walk across the border out of here, I sudenly undergo a serious personality change, and can't be trusted with a gun until I'm 21 </sarcasm>.
Not even the better of the two CO CCW bills bothered to notice that people under 21 have some rights too.
cuchulainn
March 15, 2003, 09:58 PM
from the Daily Camera
http://www.bouldernews.com/bdc/local_news/article/0,1713,BDC_2418_1814310,00.html
Firearms measures head to governor
Lawmakers approve concealed carry permit, local control gun legislation
By Steven K. Paulson, Associated Press
March 15, 2003
DENVER — Two gun bills headed to the governor on Friday, one would require sheriffs to issue concealed-handgun permits to all law-abiding applicants, the other would limit local governments' ability to regulate guns.
The Senate gave final approval to Senate Bill 24 on a 23-12 vote after approving House amendments.
The House gave final approval to Senate Bill 25 on a 39-24 vote, with no amendments.
Gov. Bill Owens has indicated he supports the concealed-carry permit bill, Senate Bill 24, sponsored by Sen. Ken Chlouber, R-Leadville. The bill passed the House by the widest margin, 46-16. He has not taken a position on Senate Bill 25.
Owens spokesman Dan Hopkins said the governor supports bills that require background checks, training and public school restrictions.
"The governor for several years has urged the Legislature to pass a bill that would strengthen the issuance of the right to carry permits instead of the hodgepodge of regulations we have now," Hopkins said.
John Head, co-founder of the anti-gun group Sane Alternatives to the Firearms Epidemic, founded in the wake of the Columbine High School shootings, urged Owens to veto the bills. He said if the governor signs the bills, the group may reconvene and present a constitutional amendment to the voters.
"We'll dust it off if we have to have an initiative. I think it's a big mistake to pre-empt local control, and it's not good public policy to allow guns to be carried just about anywhere," Head said.
Chlouber told the Senate, "This is a better proposal than the one that's on the books today." He said current law allows sheriffs in other jurisdictions to issue permits to anyone, even if they live outside the jurisdiction.
The bill was amended in the House to bar use of the information to compile a gun registration database.
Sen. Ron Tupa, D-Boulder, urged colleagues to vote against it because it would allow guns on college campuses. Chlouber said that is allowed under current law.
Sam Mamet, associate director of the Colorado Municipal League, said he would ask Owens to veto Senate Bill 25.
Officials in Boulder and Broomfield have opposed the bill, saying it pre-empts local control and laws.
For example, while most of Broomfield's gun laws mirror state law, one local ordinance requires gun-carrying security guards to obtain a permit. That regulation would be eliminated if SB 25 is signed into law.
The measure also would void ordinances in other communities, such as Boulder's law prohibiting possession of firearms in parks or open space and a Lafayette ban on weapons at public meetings.
That bill passed 39-24, with no additional amendments.
This is the first time since the shootings at Columbine High School that legislators have been able to pass major gun rights legislation.
The debate over issuing concealed weapons permits was raging when Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold killed 12 students and a teacher before they killed themselves on April 20, 1999, at Columbine in suburban Jefferson County.
Then-Rep. Doug Dean, R-Colorado Springs, quickly withdrew his bill that would have simplified the application process for concealed weapons permits after he received calls protesting lax gun laws and blaming him for the Columbine shootings.
Then-Rep. Gary McPherson, R-Aurora, sponsor of a bill to let a state law override local ordinances on gun control, also asked that his measure be set aside.
A third bill limiting the ability of local governments to file lawsuits against gun manufacturers was vetoed by Owens with agreement from legislators.
Denver Mayor Wellington Webb told city attorneys to prepare court challenges to the latest bills.
Under existing law, county sheriffs have the discretion to refuse permits to anyone. Chlouber's bill would require them to issue permits to people who pass a fingerprint-based criminal background check and who have gone through a handgun-training course.
Supporters said the measure is necessary to ensure uniform regulations around the state.
Opponents said it would allow sheriffs too much discretion and would threaten public safety by allowing more concealed guns on the streets.
The bill prohibits concealed weapons in public schools and in public buildings with permanent metal detectors.
Copyright 2002, The Daily Camera and the E.W. Scripps Company.
http://www.bouldernews.com/bdc/local_news/article/0,1713,BDC_2418_1814310,00.html
Firearms measures head to governor
Lawmakers approve concealed carry permit, local control gun legislation
By Steven K. Paulson, Associated Press
March 15, 2003
DENVER — Two gun bills headed to the governor on Friday, one would require sheriffs to issue concealed-handgun permits to all law-abiding applicants, the other would limit local governments' ability to regulate guns.
The Senate gave final approval to Senate Bill 24 on a 23-12 vote after approving House amendments.
The House gave final approval to Senate Bill 25 on a 39-24 vote, with no amendments.
Gov. Bill Owens has indicated he supports the concealed-carry permit bill, Senate Bill 24, sponsored by Sen. Ken Chlouber, R-Leadville. The bill passed the House by the widest margin, 46-16. He has not taken a position on Senate Bill 25.
Owens spokesman Dan Hopkins said the governor supports bills that require background checks, training and public school restrictions.
"The governor for several years has urged the Legislature to pass a bill that would strengthen the issuance of the right to carry permits instead of the hodgepodge of regulations we have now," Hopkins said.
John Head, co-founder of the anti-gun group Sane Alternatives to the Firearms Epidemic, founded in the wake of the Columbine High School shootings, urged Owens to veto the bills. He said if the governor signs the bills, the group may reconvene and present a constitutional amendment to the voters.
"We'll dust it off if we have to have an initiative. I think it's a big mistake to pre-empt local control, and it's not good public policy to allow guns to be carried just about anywhere," Head said.
Chlouber told the Senate, "This is a better proposal than the one that's on the books today." He said current law allows sheriffs in other jurisdictions to issue permits to anyone, even if they live outside the jurisdiction.
The bill was amended in the House to bar use of the information to compile a gun registration database.
Sen. Ron Tupa, D-Boulder, urged colleagues to vote against it because it would allow guns on college campuses. Chlouber said that is allowed under current law.
Sam Mamet, associate director of the Colorado Municipal League, said he would ask Owens to veto Senate Bill 25.
Officials in Boulder and Broomfield have opposed the bill, saying it pre-empts local control and laws.
For example, while most of Broomfield's gun laws mirror state law, one local ordinance requires gun-carrying security guards to obtain a permit. That regulation would be eliminated if SB 25 is signed into law.
The measure also would void ordinances in other communities, such as Boulder's law prohibiting possession of firearms in parks or open space and a Lafayette ban on weapons at public meetings.
That bill passed 39-24, with no additional amendments.
This is the first time since the shootings at Columbine High School that legislators have been able to pass major gun rights legislation.
The debate over issuing concealed weapons permits was raging when Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold killed 12 students and a teacher before they killed themselves on April 20, 1999, at Columbine in suburban Jefferson County.
Then-Rep. Doug Dean, R-Colorado Springs, quickly withdrew his bill that would have simplified the application process for concealed weapons permits after he received calls protesting lax gun laws and blaming him for the Columbine shootings.
Then-Rep. Gary McPherson, R-Aurora, sponsor of a bill to let a state law override local ordinances on gun control, also asked that his measure be set aside.
A third bill limiting the ability of local governments to file lawsuits against gun manufacturers was vetoed by Owens with agreement from legislators.
Denver Mayor Wellington Webb told city attorneys to prepare court challenges to the latest bills.
Under existing law, county sheriffs have the discretion to refuse permits to anyone. Chlouber's bill would require them to issue permits to people who pass a fingerprint-based criminal background check and who have gone through a handgun-training course.
Supporters said the measure is necessary to ensure uniform regulations around the state.
Opponents said it would allow sheriffs too much discretion and would threaten public safety by allowing more concealed guns on the streets.
The bill prohibits concealed weapons in public schools and in public buildings with permanent metal detectors.
Copyright 2002, The Daily Camera and the E.W. Scripps Company.
Bob Locke
March 15, 2003, 10:48 PM
"The governor for several years has urged the Legislature to pass a bill that would strengthen the issuance of the right to carry permits instead of the hodgepodge of regulations we have now," Hopkins said.
If he wanted to strengthen the issuance of permits, then why was he supporting SB 24? The number of permits will undoubtedly go DOWN under this new law due to higher fees and the training requirement, which also adds to the total cost of a permit.
Chlouber told the Senate, "This is a better proposal than the one that's on the books today." He said current law allows sheriffs in other jurisdictions to issue permits to anyone, even if they live outside the jurisdiction.
Wrong again, Sen. Chlouber. It's better for SOME Coloradoans, but for most of us this is a step backwards.
A third bill limiting the ability of local governments to file lawsuits against gun manufacturers was vetoed by Owens with agreement from legislators.
A weasel from the start. Guess he's consistent, if nothing else.
The bill prohibits concealed weapons in public schools and in public buildings with permanent metal detectors.
More steps in the wrong direction. Under current law, these are NOT prohibited, and anyone who is going to go through the trouble of getting a permit in the first place (see: law-abiding citizen) is NOT a threat to the kiddies in the schools.
I don't have any heartache with SB 25, but SB 24 is totally abhorrent to me.
If he wanted to strengthen the issuance of permits, then why was he supporting SB 24? The number of permits will undoubtedly go DOWN under this new law due to higher fees and the training requirement, which also adds to the total cost of a permit.
Chlouber told the Senate, "This is a better proposal than the one that's on the books today." He said current law allows sheriffs in other jurisdictions to issue permits to anyone, even if they live outside the jurisdiction.
Wrong again, Sen. Chlouber. It's better for SOME Coloradoans, but for most of us this is a step backwards.
A third bill limiting the ability of local governments to file lawsuits against gun manufacturers was vetoed by Owens with agreement from legislators.
A weasel from the start. Guess he's consistent, if nothing else.
The bill prohibits concealed weapons in public schools and in public buildings with permanent metal detectors.
More steps in the wrong direction. Under current law, these are NOT prohibited, and anyone who is going to go through the trouble of getting a permit in the first place (see: law-abiding citizen) is NOT a threat to the kiddies in the schools.
I don't have any heartache with SB 25, but SB 24 is totally abhorrent to me.
WYO
March 16, 2003, 12:13 PM
If the version on the legislative website is the final version as passed, this looks like one of the least restrictive CCW bills you will find anywhere. The list of prohibited places is much less than most places. You can use proof of participation in a shooting competition as proof of proficiency, rather than having to take a class. While the fee may be higher than some places, it still is not significant. I'll wager that there are very few people, if any, currently with permits who are carrying Lorcins with generic Wal Mart ball because they can't afford to carry a better gun or ammo. If this law results in a lowering of the number of permits, I would be very surprised.
I realize that people are steamed that they can't carry onto school grounds. That apparently was done to get it past the governor. Even then, it appears that you can have a gun in your car on school grounds, and it looks like it does not apply to colleges, or to private schools.
I think it's a substantial victory for the people of Colorado. Take it and move on. Try to repeal the school ban next year.
I realize that people are steamed that they can't carry onto school grounds. That apparently was done to get it past the governor. Even then, it appears that you can have a gun in your car on school grounds, and it looks like it does not apply to colleges, or to private schools.
I think it's a substantial victory for the people of Colorado. Take it and move on. Try to repeal the school ban next year.
Zundfolge
March 16, 2003, 02:29 PM
If the version on the legislative website is the final version as passed, this looks like one of the least restrictive CCW bills you will find anywhere.
You have a link to that?
You have a link to that?
WYO
March 16, 2003, 07:31 PM
Zundfolge, it's at http://www.leg.state.co.us/2003a/inetcbill.nsf/fsbillcont/D6D2AD9E8974917C87256C6B005D4177?Open&file=024_rer.pdf
Standing Wolf
March 16, 2003, 10:10 PM
Denver Mayor Wellington Webb told city attorneys to prepare court challenges to the latest bills.
Why Colorado dislikes Denver.
Why Colorado dislikes Denver.
labgrade
March 16, 2003, 10:49 PM
SB24 is a step backwards, for everybody except Denver/Jefferson. Good deal, we just screwed every county, except 2 so we can finally "put to bed CCW" in CO. & don't take that "put to bed CCW" theme lightly. CO's been arguing this since well before the Columbine fiasco & they want anything behind them & it'll be quite some time before anyone will likely readdress the issue.
What we lost:
CCW in schools, regimented training (if you can even call it that - since it's not really defined - but it's there nonetheless.
BTW, I don't qualify.
Yeah, I know (go cry, labgrade). Thing is, hunting for 45+ years, been a cop, been a militay anti-terr/hostage-rescue puke, ... yada, & besides having a CO CCW license for the past 4 yrs - I'm no longer "qualified." The Wife is, since she's had "hunters' safety" in the last 10 years.
Something amiss here, IMNSHO.
My state-level senator's a weasle, but my Rep pulled through.
Thoroughly disgusted, I am, but the enternal optomist. Perhaps in another 10 years, the state-affiliated NRA orgs will gather a spine (after soaking their backbones for the past 10 yrs) & they'll try to roll back the encroachments the antis have made regards no carry in parks, bars, eateries, etc.
All they had to do was change "may" to "shall" ....
Yup, the "pro-gunnies" are crowing about how the antis have had their butts kicked (& know it) - & this before the bills are signed - we'll see.
What the gunnies did is what those of "political expediency" always do = bow to the political realities. Thing is, we already HAD a good CCW statute here - & they just lobbied (for 10 yrs) to make it worse - & likely/mostly w/o even knowing what current law provided for.
:barf:
What we lost:
CCW in schools, regimented training (if you can even call it that - since it's not really defined - but it's there nonetheless.
BTW, I don't qualify.
Yeah, I know (go cry, labgrade). Thing is, hunting for 45+ years, been a cop, been a militay anti-terr/hostage-rescue puke, ... yada, & besides having a CO CCW license for the past 4 yrs - I'm no longer "qualified." The Wife is, since she's had "hunters' safety" in the last 10 years.
Something amiss here, IMNSHO.
My state-level senator's a weasle, but my Rep pulled through.
Thoroughly disgusted, I am, but the enternal optomist. Perhaps in another 10 years, the state-affiliated NRA orgs will gather a spine (after soaking their backbones for the past 10 yrs) & they'll try to roll back the encroachments the antis have made regards no carry in parks, bars, eateries, etc.
All they had to do was change "may" to "shall" ....
Yup, the "pro-gunnies" are crowing about how the antis have had their butts kicked (& know it) - & this before the bills are signed - we'll see.
What the gunnies did is what those of "political expediency" always do = bow to the political realities. Thing is, we already HAD a good CCW statute here - & they just lobbied (for 10 yrs) to make it worse - & likely/mostly w/o even knowing what current law provided for.
:barf:
Zak Smith
March 16, 2003, 11:04 PM
labgrade,
I agree.
It looks like our current permits are good until 2007, unless they expire earlier. I am not a lawyer, but it looks like we can carry in schools with our old permits, until they expires. Can anyone confirm?
Zak
I agree.
It looks like our current permits are good until 2007, unless they expire earlier. I am not a lawyer, but it looks like we can carry in schools with our old permits, until they expires. Can anyone confirm?
Zak
Gray Peterson
March 16, 2003, 11:06 PM
Labgrade:
Are you sure it's just Denver and Jefferson county that was may-issue/no-issue?
I heard a figure that more that 20 counties were discretionary/no-issue.
Are you sure it's just Denver and Jefferson county that was may-issue/no-issue?
I heard a figure that more that 20 counties were discretionary/no-issue.
Bob Locke
March 16, 2003, 11:52 PM
I heard a figure that more that 20 counties were discretionary/no-issue.
Technically speaking, ALL counties are/were discretionary issue. And for the vast majority of the state, it was de facto shall issue because pretty much no one got turned down. That's the one (and only) positive thing about SB 24: it removes the decision-making from the sheriffs and forces them to issue a permit to those persons who meet the qualifications. That could have been rectified as labgrade stated earlier, by simply changing the word "may" to "shall" in the current statute.
While the fee may be higher than some places, it still is not significant.
Figure a minimum of $150 for the fee plus the cost of a training course, or $100 if you happen to not need the training. That's ridiculous. The fee should be capped at the administrative cost incurred by the county in doing the backgound check. And that check should be the same one used to decide whether or not you can purchase a handgun in the first place, because if you can buy the gun, then the state obviously should have no problem with you carrying it concealed.
I think it's a substantial victory for the people of Colorado. Take it and move on. Try to repeal the school ban next year.
We're gonna have to respectfully agree to disagree. It's a victory for SOME people (those who live in Denver and JeffCo.), but the rest of the state (myself included) got hurt in the process.
The training requirement was demanded by (surprise, surprise) the NRA. Guess whose instructors are going to reap a windfall from it. No ulterior motive there. No, sir. They're no more pro-gun than Owens.
It took them a couple of dozen pages to do what could have easily and rightly been accomplished in one: changing one word.
:barf:
Technically speaking, ALL counties are/were discretionary issue. And for the vast majority of the state, it was de facto shall issue because pretty much no one got turned down. That's the one (and only) positive thing about SB 24: it removes the decision-making from the sheriffs and forces them to issue a permit to those persons who meet the qualifications. That could have been rectified as labgrade stated earlier, by simply changing the word "may" to "shall" in the current statute.
While the fee may be higher than some places, it still is not significant.
Figure a minimum of $150 for the fee plus the cost of a training course, or $100 if you happen to not need the training. That's ridiculous. The fee should be capped at the administrative cost incurred by the county in doing the backgound check. And that check should be the same one used to decide whether or not you can purchase a handgun in the first place, because if you can buy the gun, then the state obviously should have no problem with you carrying it concealed.
I think it's a substantial victory for the people of Colorado. Take it and move on. Try to repeal the school ban next year.
We're gonna have to respectfully agree to disagree. It's a victory for SOME people (those who live in Denver and JeffCo.), but the rest of the state (myself included) got hurt in the process.
The training requirement was demanded by (surprise, surprise) the NRA. Guess whose instructors are going to reap a windfall from it. No ulterior motive there. No, sir. They're no more pro-gun than Owens.
It took them a couple of dozen pages to do what could have easily and rightly been accomplished in one: changing one word.
:barf:
labgrade
March 17, 2003, 01:16 AM
Zak,
Far as I know, our Latimer county permits expire with Alderdan being term-limited in '06 anyway - something to considerm huh/
& hope my mea cupla satisfied. Far as I'm concerned, this type forum is of thoughts, not being right always. ;) (I've had my share)
& frankly, although having kept up somewhat with what's happening, I don't have a clue as to the final language other than reports from those who do.
But when our NRA-buddies start giving high-fives "for victory," I know we're screwed.
Lonnie,
The whole state has been discressionary always (Co constitution doesn't even recognise anything CCW-wise - & specifically states that "nothing herein shall construe .... the allowance of ...". That some Sheriffs took it upon themselves to issue was a huge success - partly built on election pledges (which they upheld) based on pure political pressure to elect same who would. Some Sheriffs have issued out of county, as have some CoPs (CRS allows such already).
(As a quick aside. If you haven't already, take a look at RMGO's page & look for (mumble) "statutes" or some such. I did a deal for 'em about 1-1/2 years ago - an indepth research on CRS firearms stuff.
We already could CCW in any school, any bar, any eatery, any place not banned by the feds (whiuch didn't include fed property BTW per USC 18. 923 - do look at that pargraph c they never post .... )
In short, really anybody who really wanted a CCW in CO could have gotten one. Those counties who finally had enough with "their $#!+," (a la Boulder) conovinced 'em enough to issue.
Essentially, only those in Denver/Jefferson couldn't get a permit, & that only if they sat on their butts & didn't work enough to find out how to get one - & even then ....
In essense, our NRA-affiliates have played on the laziness to help push this thing throughso we all have to go through the crap that Denver resits always wished they'd have to. :barf:
Good deal!
To "save" 1 million that wouldn't anyway, we've screwed the other 4 million who already did.
& our NRA-folk are jumpin' fer joy yellin' "Finally Success!"
C'mon.
Back to "discretionary," it all always was (per above) & the ONLY thing CRS 18-12-105 ever said that IF a Cop/Sheriff did a background check, they could be held liable. Heck, the way the (current, till signed & into law newby-bill will be), they could've issued to a in-The Big House till life does us part multi-murderer with impunity - only if they did a background check beforehand - didn't even have to come up clean.
Like me & Bob L have always said .... all they had to do was change "may' to "shall" if we would have The Best CCW, w/lincense system in the country.
Already were all but there, but the pol-types had to get in & "fix it."
I did extensive research across the other 49 states last year to help RMGO prop up Dave S for his (mumble #) bill. It would have allowed anyone who was able to buy the handgun (through the already established NICS & redundant CO CBI check/s) to carry it CCW legally.
I'd bet 99% never even understood what the current laws indicated, but just paid their $35 to whatever group that "represented" them & bought into the party line.
How on earth could anyone even "decide" what a new law woiuld mean to them if they never read the current law - & could discern what the changes might entail!?
Interestingly enough (sarcasm aside) that I have to stand in line waiting approval to buy my grandkid a single-shot .22 rifle while already CCWing. Such was what we proposed.
Frankly, with friends such as we have with CSSA, Pikes Peak, & some of our THR/ex-TFLers, I don't need it any longer - I've bailed & will take my efforts to just helping out my familiy & those of "my own community." The rest will always get what they always wanted.
No bad cess to anyone in specific, but y'all get exactly what you asked for.
Enjoy the cage.
[emphatically dis-gusted]
Far as I know, our Latimer county permits expire with Alderdan being term-limited in '06 anyway - something to considerm huh/
& hope my mea cupla satisfied. Far as I'm concerned, this type forum is of thoughts, not being right always. ;) (I've had my share)
& frankly, although having kept up somewhat with what's happening, I don't have a clue as to the final language other than reports from those who do.
But when our NRA-buddies start giving high-fives "for victory," I know we're screwed.
Lonnie,
The whole state has been discressionary always (Co constitution doesn't even recognise anything CCW-wise - & specifically states that "nothing herein shall construe .... the allowance of ...". That some Sheriffs took it upon themselves to issue was a huge success - partly built on election pledges (which they upheld) based on pure political pressure to elect same who would. Some Sheriffs have issued out of county, as have some CoPs (CRS allows such already).
(As a quick aside. If you haven't already, take a look at RMGO's page & look for (mumble) "statutes" or some such. I did a deal for 'em about 1-1/2 years ago - an indepth research on CRS firearms stuff.
We already could CCW in any school, any bar, any eatery, any place not banned by the feds (whiuch didn't include fed property BTW per USC 18. 923 - do look at that pargraph c they never post .... )
In short, really anybody who really wanted a CCW in CO could have gotten one. Those counties who finally had enough with "their $#!+," (a la Boulder) conovinced 'em enough to issue.
Essentially, only those in Denver/Jefferson couldn't get a permit, & that only if they sat on their butts & didn't work enough to find out how to get one - & even then ....
In essense, our NRA-affiliates have played on the laziness to help push this thing throughso we all have to go through the crap that Denver resits always wished they'd have to. :barf:
Good deal!
To "save" 1 million that wouldn't anyway, we've screwed the other 4 million who already did.
& our NRA-folk are jumpin' fer joy yellin' "Finally Success!"
C'mon.
Back to "discretionary," it all always was (per above) & the ONLY thing CRS 18-12-105 ever said that IF a Cop/Sheriff did a background check, they could be held liable. Heck, the way the (current, till signed & into law newby-bill will be), they could've issued to a in-The Big House till life does us part multi-murderer with impunity - only if they did a background check beforehand - didn't even have to come up clean.
Like me & Bob L have always said .... all they had to do was change "may' to "shall" if we would have The Best CCW, w/lincense system in the country.
Already were all but there, but the pol-types had to get in & "fix it."
I did extensive research across the other 49 states last year to help RMGO prop up Dave S for his (mumble #) bill. It would have allowed anyone who was able to buy the handgun (through the already established NICS & redundant CO CBI check/s) to carry it CCW legally.
I'd bet 99% never even understood what the current laws indicated, but just paid their $35 to whatever group that "represented" them & bought into the party line.
How on earth could anyone even "decide" what a new law woiuld mean to them if they never read the current law - & could discern what the changes might entail!?
Interestingly enough (sarcasm aside) that I have to stand in line waiting approval to buy my grandkid a single-shot .22 rifle while already CCWing. Such was what we proposed.
Frankly, with friends such as we have with CSSA, Pikes Peak, & some of our THR/ex-TFLers, I don't need it any longer - I've bailed & will take my efforts to just helping out my familiy & those of "my own community." The rest will always get what they always wanted.
No bad cess to anyone in specific, but y'all get exactly what you asked for.
Enjoy the cage.
[emphatically dis-gusted]
Zak Smith
March 17, 2003, 09:15 AM
Does anyone know if the new SB24 - as offensive as it is - will give us any more reciprocity with other states?
-z
-z
WYO
March 17, 2003, 09:36 AM
Zak Smith, that is going to depend upon the laws of the other states, but the reciprocity provision of the Colorado statute, which sets forth the conditions under which Colorado will recognize other states' permits, makes it highly likely that Colorado permit holders will get reciprocity with a number of other states. Also note that people who want to ride out their current permits without applying for the new ones, may not get reciprocity, because the reciprocity provision of the new statute only applies to permits issued pursuant to the new scheme.
From the CO legislative website:
18-12-213. Reciprocity. A PERMIT TO CARRY A CONCEALED HANDGUN OR A CONCEALED WEAPON THAT IS ISSUED TO A PERSON TWENTY-ONE YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER BY A STATE THAT RECOGNIZES THE VALIDITY OF PERMITS ISSUED PURSUANT TO THIS PART 2 SHALL BE VALID IN THIS STATE IN ALL RESPECTS AS A PERMIT ISSUED PURSUANT TO THIS PART 2.
From the CO legislative website:
18-12-213. Reciprocity. A PERMIT TO CARRY A CONCEALED HANDGUN OR A CONCEALED WEAPON THAT IS ISSUED TO A PERSON TWENTY-ONE YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER BY A STATE THAT RECOGNIZES THE VALIDITY OF PERMITS ISSUED PURSUANT TO THIS PART 2 SHALL BE VALID IN THIS STATE IN ALL RESPECTS AS A PERMIT ISSUED PURSUANT TO THIS PART 2.
Tropical Z
March 17, 2003, 12:47 PM
These bills are NOT positive for Colorado!!!:cuss:
Gray Peterson
March 17, 2003, 01:36 PM
Labgrade, Standing Wolf, all of the people who are pissed off over SB 24:
It's over. Ok? I know both of you are angry over the school exclusion, the training, the database, and all that.
But let's see some of the positives of this:
You see, I live in Oregon. Though it is a shall-issue state, it has a "documented issues" provision. The only time it's ever been abused was by Multnomah County here in Oregon, and the Oregon appeals court smacked down the Sheriff big time over it.
At least you don't have a situation in many of the southern states, where after passing the bills, the groups down there died out and now there's no positive movement. Florida has no repealed a regulation or a CEZ or anything since it started 16 years ago. The only thing that's changed is a slight lowering of fees, extension of licensing to everyone in the US, and reciprocity. That's it.
Now that SB24 is a reality, RMGO should do everything possible to pound on this legislator's hard for them to start repealing CEZ's like schools, reducing fees, and so on.
Now that SB24 is the law in CO, let's do everything possible to make it better in further years to come.
It's over. Ok? I know both of you are angry over the school exclusion, the training, the database, and all that.
But let's see some of the positives of this:
You see, I live in Oregon. Though it is a shall-issue state, it has a "documented issues" provision. The only time it's ever been abused was by Multnomah County here in Oregon, and the Oregon appeals court smacked down the Sheriff big time over it.
At least you don't have a situation in many of the southern states, where after passing the bills, the groups down there died out and now there's no positive movement. Florida has no repealed a regulation or a CEZ or anything since it started 16 years ago. The only thing that's changed is a slight lowering of fees, extension of licensing to everyone in the US, and reciprocity. That's it.
Now that SB24 is a reality, RMGO should do everything possible to pound on this legislator's hard for them to start repealing CEZ's like schools, reducing fees, and so on.
Now that SB24 is the law in CO, let's do everything possible to make it better in further years to come.
Zak Smith
March 17, 2003, 02:28 PM
Lonnie,
RMGO was for SB63 and against SB24, if I remember correctly.
It was the NRA and CSSA who were for SB24. Given the choice between the two; they chose the more restrictive one.
-z
RMGO was for SB63 and against SB24, if I remember correctly.
It was the NRA and CSSA who were for SB24. Given the choice between the two; they chose the more restrictive one.
-z
GregoryTech
March 17, 2003, 03:18 PM
Woohoo! Now when I go back home to Colorado at the end of the semester,
...I still won't be able to get a permit. See, I'm responsible enough here in Indiana because I'm 19. But when I walk across the border out of here, I sudenly undergo a serious personality change, and can't be trusted with a gun until I'm 21 </sarcasm>.
Not even the better of the two CO CCW bills bothered to notice that people under 21 have some rights too.
Oh, you have rights. You have the right to stand in front of a bullet in defense of this nation. You have the right to die for the rights of other Americans. You have the right to decide that you're old enough to risk exposing yourslef chemical and biological attacks to defend your country... , :fire: You just don't have the right to legally drink or carry a gun for your own self-defense. :fire:
And it's Bravo Sierra to me, even though it's been decades since I've had to think about it personally.
...I still won't be able to get a permit. See, I'm responsible enough here in Indiana because I'm 19. But when I walk across the border out of here, I sudenly undergo a serious personality change, and can't be trusted with a gun until I'm 21 </sarcasm>.
Not even the better of the two CO CCW bills bothered to notice that people under 21 have some rights too.
Oh, you have rights. You have the right to stand in front of a bullet in defense of this nation. You have the right to die for the rights of other Americans. You have the right to decide that you're old enough to risk exposing yourslef chemical and biological attacks to defend your country... , :fire: You just don't have the right to legally drink or carry a gun for your own self-defense. :fire:
And it's Bravo Sierra to me, even though it's been decades since I've had to think about it personally.
Bob Locke
March 17, 2003, 08:22 PM
It's over. Ok? I know both of you are angry over the school exclusion, the training, the database, and all that.
But let's see some of the positives of this:
That's "positive", as in singular. The sole provision of this bill that is a "win" is shall-issue. The rest of it is wrong-headed and bad for freedom-loving Coloradoans like myself.
One step forward and two steps back is NOT the way you make progress in the real world.
And pointing out the fact that the people who supported this bill are NOT on our side is the first step towards making the changes you are recommending we go after. Politicians understand two things and ONLY two things: contributions and votes. Bringing pressure in both of those areas, starting right now, is the only way we can hope to be effective. Jumping up and down and getting pissed off is part of that process, and accepting that "It's over" is not an option if you want to win.
It's never over.
But let's see some of the positives of this:
That's "positive", as in singular. The sole provision of this bill that is a "win" is shall-issue. The rest of it is wrong-headed and bad for freedom-loving Coloradoans like myself.
One step forward and two steps back is NOT the way you make progress in the real world.
And pointing out the fact that the people who supported this bill are NOT on our side is the first step towards making the changes you are recommending we go after. Politicians understand two things and ONLY two things: contributions and votes. Bringing pressure in both of those areas, starting right now, is the only way we can hope to be effective. Jumping up and down and getting pissed off is part of that process, and accepting that "It's over" is not an option if you want to win.
It's never over.
Standing Wolf
March 17, 2003, 09:20 PM
It's never over.
True.
What Colorado really needs is a Vermont-style law: if you legally own it, you can legally carry it. I'd be in favor of legislation stating that if you're legally too intoxicated to drive, you're legally too intoxicated to carry, but otherwise, you can carry anywhere at any time for any reason.
I doubt any of that's likely to happen in the foreseeable future, but it could be made to happen.
For what it's worth, the two-day course I took last fall cost me the grand sum of $50 plus a couple boxes of ammunition. I'd rather see a test than a training course requirement, but must admit the course I took was well worth the time and money.
I see no reason whatever that our civil rights should stop at school house doors, and sincerely hope we'll follow Utah's example.
I'm not wildly unhappy with the bills as they stand—I used to live in the People's Republic of California, after all—but believe they can, should, and will be improved down the proverbial "road."
True.
What Colorado really needs is a Vermont-style law: if you legally own it, you can legally carry it. I'd be in favor of legislation stating that if you're legally too intoxicated to drive, you're legally too intoxicated to carry, but otherwise, you can carry anywhere at any time for any reason.
I doubt any of that's likely to happen in the foreseeable future, but it could be made to happen.
For what it's worth, the two-day course I took last fall cost me the grand sum of $50 plus a couple boxes of ammunition. I'd rather see a test than a training course requirement, but must admit the course I took was well worth the time and money.
I see no reason whatever that our civil rights should stop at school house doors, and sincerely hope we'll follow Utah's example.
I'm not wildly unhappy with the bills as they stand—I used to live in the People's Republic of California, after all—but believe they can, should, and will be improved down the proverbial "road."
justice4all
March 17, 2003, 09:54 PM
Monday has come and gone; anyone know if Owens signed the bills or not?
Bob Locke
March 18, 2003, 12:52 AM
I'd rather see a test than a training course requirement, but must admit the course I took was well worth the time and money.
Oddly enough, I had the same thought today about a test in lieu of a training course. I bet we could get that passed in an either/or manner.
Then again, who gets to set the standards?
As I've said before, I'm for treating adults like adults: Enjoy your freedoms until you abuse those of someone else.
if you legally own it, you can legally carry it.
That's the whole thing right there. If I can buy it, I CAN carry it. Not legally, but that's not the point. I can stick my G19 in the small of my back right now sans permit. The only thing stopping me is my sense of wanting/needing to follow the law, which is why I'll never get denied when I go to purchase a firearm in the first place.
Thomas Jefferson said something along these lines a couple hundred years ago:
"False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction.
The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes....Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
Thomas Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria in Chapter 40 of "On Crimes and Punishment", 1764.
This is NOT a new debate, nor have the principles changed.
Oddly enough, I had the same thought today about a test in lieu of a training course. I bet we could get that passed in an either/or manner.
Then again, who gets to set the standards?
As I've said before, I'm for treating adults like adults: Enjoy your freedoms until you abuse those of someone else.
if you legally own it, you can legally carry it.
That's the whole thing right there. If I can buy it, I CAN carry it. Not legally, but that's not the point. I can stick my G19 in the small of my back right now sans permit. The only thing stopping me is my sense of wanting/needing to follow the law, which is why I'll never get denied when I go to purchase a firearm in the first place.
Thomas Jefferson said something along these lines a couple hundred years ago:
"False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction.
The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes....Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
Thomas Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria in Chapter 40 of "On Crimes and Punishment", 1764.
This is NOT a new debate, nor have the principles changed.
cuchulainn
March 18, 2003, 06:19 PM
http://www.trib.com/AP/wire_detail.php?wire_num=13910
Owens approves biggest expansion of gun rights since Columbine
DENVER (AP) - Gov. Bill Owens signed two bills Tuesday that pave the way for the biggest expansion of gun rights in Colorado since the Columbine High School shootings nearly four years ago.
One measure - Senate Bill 24 - requires sheriffs to issue permits to people who pass a fingerprint-based criminal background check and who have gone through a handgun-training course.
The other - Senate Bill 25 - prohibits local governments from making gun control laws more restrictive than state law and abolishes local registries of gun owners.
Owens said Senate Bill 24 provides a uniform standard for the issuance of a right-to-carry permit. He said the other bill will help resolve confusion on the sale, possession of carrying firearms.
Tom Mauser, whose son Daniel died in the 1999 Columbine shootings, said the two bills will put more guns on the streets and that will lead to more violence and death.
''I am shocked and dismayed at our state's leadership, for they have thrown aside the safety of citizens and local control in favor of the gun lobby by passing both Senate Bill 24 and Senate Bill 25,'' Mauser said.
AP-WS-03-18-03 1706EST
Owens approves biggest expansion of gun rights since Columbine
DENVER (AP) - Gov. Bill Owens signed two bills Tuesday that pave the way for the biggest expansion of gun rights in Colorado since the Columbine High School shootings nearly four years ago.
One measure - Senate Bill 24 - requires sheriffs to issue permits to people who pass a fingerprint-based criminal background check and who have gone through a handgun-training course.
The other - Senate Bill 25 - prohibits local governments from making gun control laws more restrictive than state law and abolishes local registries of gun owners.
Owens said Senate Bill 24 provides a uniform standard for the issuance of a right-to-carry permit. He said the other bill will help resolve confusion on the sale, possession of carrying firearms.
Tom Mauser, whose son Daniel died in the 1999 Columbine shootings, said the two bills will put more guns on the streets and that will lead to more violence and death.
''I am shocked and dismayed at our state's leadership, for they have thrown aside the safety of citizens and local control in favor of the gun lobby by passing both Senate Bill 24 and Senate Bill 25,'' Mauser said.
AP-WS-03-18-03 1706EST
Bob Locke
March 19, 2003, 04:43 AM
Mauser can take a flying leap. Emotions have NEVER led to good law making.
But the title of that article is misleading. This is NOT an expansion of gun rights, overall, it is a reduction.
Guess if I need a weapon I can pull that knife from my back...
But the title of that article is misleading. This is NOT an expansion of gun rights, overall, it is a reduction.
Guess if I need a weapon I can pull that knife from my back...
If you enjoyed reading about "Colorado CCW Bills" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
vBulletin® v3.8.6, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.