[Frohickey]

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/legislature/article/0,1299,DRMN_37_1821259,00.html


By The Associated Press
March 18, 2003

Gov. Bill Owens signed two bills today 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.




----------------------------------------------------------

Now, I wonder if Tom Mauser will recant when his predictions of doom and gloom and rise in violence and death is proven to be false.

[Standing Wolf]

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.

<sarcasm> I guess having your child murdered by savage criminals makes you an instant authority on law-abiding American citizens. </sarcasm>

[Gray Peterson]

Well, since we're pinning blame on certain people and certain groups:

I wonder how many daughters, sons and so on, that Tom Mauser has killed by his opposition to concealed carry reform?

How many people's blood is on Tom Mauser's hands?

[Greg L]

Good news for CO. Now if Ohio would just get off their collective butts and make sure that reciprocity is included things would really be great.

Greg

[Marko Kloos]

This is excellent news for our friends in Colorado. Contrary to the ramblings of HCI, concealed carry reform is making steady inroads every year.

I hope it really bugs the socialists running Denver and Fort Collins. :neener:

[Thumper]

Congrats, Coloradoans...how about reciprocity?

Anyone have the text of the bills?

Guess I'd better search.

[trapshooter]

Congratulations, folks. A long, hard fight, finally won. Maybe it will give some impetus to the few remaining states that have a chance for similar enlightenment this year, like the one I'm in.

In any case, I'm sure the blissninny contingents in Denver and the Fort are having a choking fit right now. Tough.:evil: Lived in both. Used to work the graveyard near Five Points. Would stand atop the Fed. Office Bldg at 19th & Stout and listen to the gunfire. Now maybe regular folks will have a chance.

[Frohickey]

No Issue:
Nebraska
Kansas
Wisconsin - bill pending
Missouri - bill pending
Illinois
Ohio - bill pending, lawsuit pending
New Mexico - bill passed, law signed, declared unconstitutional, legislature needs to try again, this time with Klinton crony Gov Bill "NuclearSecretsForChina" Richardson
Washington DC - lawsuit pending

May Issue:
Kalifornia - @#*#!
Hawaii
Minnesota - bill pending
Iowa
New York
Maryland
Delaware
New Jersey
Rhode Island
Massachusetts

33 states are shall issue!

[cool45auto]

Good going CO!:D

[UnknownSailor]

You might as well put Hawaii in the no-issue column. I hear that only one person in the entire state has the license, and it's the Honalulu PD armorer.

[Zundfolge]

Its a mixed bag for Colorado.

Some counties already treat CCW as Shall issue, with less restrictions and no training requirement.

I live in El Paso county and from what I've read of the new state law it looks like they took El Paso county's CCW and made it state wide, so nothing changes for me.


Oh well, its a step toward Vermont style ... but Section 13 (the equivalent of the 2nd amendment in the Colorado constitution) expressly says ; "The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons." So I don't know if we'll ever get VT carry :(

[Standing Wolf]

So I don't know if we'll ever get VT carry

I'm not real hopeful myself, but believe we ought to try for two reasons:

1.) You don't always get what you ask for, but you never get what you don't ask for.

2.) It would really scare the heck out of the leftist extremists in Denver.

[BamBam]

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.
In this six paragraph story, ONE THIRD is comprised of an anti's opinion. Plus, the first paragraph mentions the Columbine massacre; this means that fully one-half of the story has an anti slant.
No pro-RKBA quotes to balance the story.
I'm going to lose my mind!

[Zak Smith]

Sure, it's shall-issue, but that's the only good thing about it. Read the following threads:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=13643
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4985

For everyone who lived in de-facto "shall issue" counties, we lose rights and get more restrictions.

-z

[Quartus]

Two steps forward, one step back. A little here, a little there. Keep your eyes on the ultimate goal, on the BIG picture.


That's how the liberals have gotten as far as they have. It's a good strategy. It wins over time.


Don't complain when it goes our way.


http://www.thehighroad.org/images/icons/icon14.gif

[Jim March]

Zundfolge: Section 13 says that you won't get Vermont via the state Constitution. That doesn't rule out legislation, or even the FED Constitution if the Nine Robes In DC ever crack open a dictionary and look up the word "infringed" :rolleyes:.

OK, so what are the details of this thing? Can somebody post a link here to the bill that passed?

[Zundfolge]

here's a PDF of the bill (well I guess Law now :) ): http://www.leg.state.co.us/2003a/inetcbill.nsf/fsbillcont/D6D2AD9E8974917C87256C6B005D4177?Open&file=024_rer.pdf

[KarlG]

Senate bills 24 and 25 (now law) can be found at the following web addreses respectively.

Colorado Senate Bill 24 (http://www.leg.state.co.us/2003a/inetcbill.nsf/fsbillcont/D6D2AD9E8974917C87256C6B005D4177?Open&file=024_enr.pdf)

Colorado Senate Bill 25 (http://www.leg.state.co.us/2003a/inetcbill.nsf/fsbillcont/BA709BADBE9A9A2987256C9200612B89?Open&file=025_enr.pdf)

[KarlG]

I guess Zundfolge beat me to posting the URL's.

I believe that Colorado's Senate Bill 63 was a much better bill than 24, but the "politicians" I spoke with told me it would never fly because it didn't have the restrictions that 24 has. Along the same lines, I was at a gun show last weekend and had a woman at a political organization's booth tell me how much of a victory it was to have SB 24 passed by the house. They (the group she represented) had pushed to get it through. When I explained how she sold my rights for a hollow victory, she said she could see my point and then asked if I wanted to buy a raffle ticket for a new Smith and Wesson. I had to take another five minutes to explaing to her how she and her organization continued to sell my rights by supporting S&W. I know at least a few people heard me beause they were watching the convrsation intently.

On a more positive note, I think SB 25 was a big victory. It allows my friends in Denver to own and cary the same guns I can own and carry just across the imaginary line which is the Denver city border.

[Croyance]

Is there state pre-emption?

[Blackhawk]

Best thing is that reciprocity should be right around the corner, but I'm glad it makes CO carry laws uniform -- at least it seems to....

[Jim March]

Reciprocity with anybody that recognizes the CO permit is included:

------------------
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
------------------

Cool.

The training requirements aren't all that bad. Any training inside of the last 10 years flies. As does being enrolled in a competitive shooting program (incl. CAS/SASS, as far as I can see), past .mil experience, some other stuff.

A sheriff can deny if he can come up with a good reason; the burden is on him, and he pays the court costs if he loses. This is pretty common in various shall-issue systems, and so far as I'm aware isn't subject to much abuse because law enforcement has to "stick their necks out" to deny.

Local law pre-emption is covered in #25. WELL covered. More on that below.

There's no "bar/restraunt carry ban", only a ban on packin' while drunk. This is the better way of handling it.

They can ban carry in a public building only if there's metal detectors up AND they offer to stash your bangthing while you do business in court or whatever.

School carry is banned, but you can at least leave it in the car in the parking lot. Again, this isn't that bad comparatively speaking.

Whoa.

My first reaction: this is NOT that bad. God, we'd kill to get this in California, almost :D.

Now, both bills have what certainly looks like an "immediate action" clause?

------------
SECTION 3. Safety clause. The general assembly hereby finds,
determines, and declares that this act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, and safety.
------------

So...when does this take effect?

[Gray Peterson]

SB25 takes effect immediately.

SB24 takes effect in 60 days.

[labgrade]

Jim,

They slap that "immediacy clause" on the end of every bill here in CO.

Too, FAIK, reciprocity will only apply to states who recognize ours. May be a while for TX, FL, etc.

Well - done deal anyways.

Now to start working on removing some of the more onerous provisions .....

KarlG,

No chance that was Ammie R/CSSA was it? ;)

[El Tejon]

Hooray for Red! Take that, Denver.

Hate to see that training requirement and disarming rubbish, however there is reciprocity/comity. If I go to see my cousin, I can carry, even in Denver.

Mr. Mauser should be very happy. Public Schools are off limits to good guys carrying guns and are thus governmentally approved slaughter pens, just as he desires.

[Jim March]

There's a number of states that have reciprocity set up exactly the same way: "we'll recognize anybody's who recognizes us". Which SHOULD equal automatic reciprocity for both.

There's four states that simply say "we recognize all other permits" - Indiana, Idaho and Michigan are three, I can never remember the fourth :). But in any case, you're covered there.

--------------

Now, when this finally takes effect, after a bit you'll start to see newspaper articles to the effect of "gee, where's all the dead bodies the grabbers promised us!?". I collect those stories! It'll be about six to nine months before they start hitting in Colorado, if y'all follow the pattern seen in Michigan when they switched. See also:

http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw/ccweffects.html

Amusingly, the crooks will hear about loosened carry permits, most will fail to understand that there's a delay, and will switch to non-confrontational crime "early" :D.

----------------

The worst part in my opinion is the up-to-$100 fee to the local agency, ON TOP OF the background check fee to the state police. :scrutiny: That's nuts. Under a shall-issue system, it just doesn't cost that much. If it was me, I'd fight to knock that $100 down to $25 or so...that's more vulnerable than the training.

As to the training: y'all got yerself a MASSIVE loophole in the "organized shooting competition" thing :). Stop and think: who here can't design a course of fire that allows ANY sane CCW weapon to compete on an equal footing, with some kinda "handicap system" that would allow J-frame snubs to race head-to-head against Glocks or whatever, and let everybody have fun on a shoestring?

Yes, I'm serious.

[El Tejon]

Jim, I believe the other state is Alaska. Indiana is goofy in that it recognizes all foreign countries as well as all other states.

Wow, you're right, had not stopped to think about the "training requirement loophole." We'll see how that is administered. The devil is in the admin code.:scrutiny:

[Double Naught Spy]

I am glad you collect those stories, Jim. I bet that is fun. After reading the brief article and the posts on this thread, I thought Mauser may have unwittingly given a backhanded blessing to pro gun folks as there will not be increased gun violence in general and definitely not by law abiding folks except in the lawful acts of self defense.

How ironic to have a name like Mauser and to be anti-gun.

[foghornl]

Ohio is no CCW right now, but the case before the Ohio Supremes is set for oral arguments in April (15th, I believe..appropriately enough, tax day....will double check that date)

There are a couple of more lawsuits regarding CCW at lower [city/county court] levels, too.

CCW reform was passed last year by Ohio House of Reps, got tangled up in the Spineless Ohiop Senate, and Gov. Booby [flip-flop] Daft and the FOP trying to add countless amanedments and more restrictions.

New measure has passed the House this year. For more details, please visit the website of Ohioans for Concealed Carry.

www.Ohioccw.org

[Steve Smith]

WOO HOO!!! Where is that dancing snoopy thing when you need it? Now I realize that in some ways its a step backwards, but in others it is a big step forwards. I'm happy with the results.

[Zak Smith]

I was reading through SB25, and noticed 29-11.7-104. Does this mean OPEN CARRY is now "okay" throughout Colorado, unless otherwise posted by a local entity?

That would widen our carry options a bit!

-z

[vitiaz]

Here is what the CSSA sent me, (sorry, pretty long)

Sent: Monday, March 03, 2003 9:28 PM
Subject: Dispelling misinformation on SB024


Dispelling misinformation regarding CO Senate Bill 03-024

A step forward to protect Right-To-Carry
and providing equal protection for law-abiding Coloradans!

Many say that since Sheriffs in many Colorado counties are ssuing permits to carry that passing Senate Bill 24 is unnecessary -- that Sheriffs are accountable to local voters and therefore these policies will continue despite term limits imposed on the office. A decade ago when the battle to pass Right-To-Carry began in Colorado there were virtually no permits issued.

Success in other states, success of systems in the few Colorado counties that issued permits and continued debate on the issue changed the attitude toward concealed carry permits to a positive one. Term limits and time could reverse that situation and placing even current permit issuance criteria on the books represents a step toward protecting Right-To-Carry in the
Rocky Mountain state for future generations.

Moreover, Senate Bill 24 is a move forward from many current permit issuing policies such as the age restriction of 25 to qualify for a permit in El Paso County, a needs based requirement previously instituted in Arapahoe County and possibly being instituted in Weld County today. Douglas County also has requirements that go beyond those in Senate Bill 24. What we all must remember is that historically once a Right-To-Carry law goes into effect it does not become more restrictive. Instead there are opportunities to improve the system with time and increased comfort with permit holders from the public in areas that do not current have permits.

There are many subtleties in the legislative language of Senate Bill 24 that have been misinterpreted by some individuals as being egregious, therefore there are some explanations to these concerns outlined below.

Misinformation: Senate Bill 24 is a "monopoly" for NRA training
intending to make money for the organization. Hunter education should qualify as sufficient training to obtain a permit to carry.

What Senate Bill 24 really says: There are numerous other
organizations that can certify firearm instructors for qualifications
under SB 24, including all state, federal and local law enforcement
agencies. In addition, any nationally recognized organziation that
offers courses in personal protection, safe handling and use of a
handgun and certifies national competitions can certify qualified
instructors under SB 24. If the various competetive shooting
organizations wish to offer these courses in addition to their
competitions they are certainly qualified to do so. While we prefer
this not be discussed openly as it could backfire -- hunter education instructors meet the definition of qualified instructors since DOW is a law enforcement agency. They will have to find a way to teach appropriate use of deadly force but the Governor's office is working on that.

__________________

Misinformation: Senate Bill 24 sets a fee of $100 and $30 for
fingerprints, which is higher than current fees.

What Senate Bill 24 really says: The fee is a MAXIMUM of $100 for the initial permit not to exceed the Sheriff's actual cost. In the very recent past there have been several jurisdictions that have used an exhorbitant fee to deter people from getting permits and setting the maximum amount in statute stops future issuing authorities from repeating this discriminatory practice. This happened in my own case. The Thornton law indicated a cost of $15 for a concealed permit. When I applied, and sent them the $15, I got a letter by return mail, advising the charge had been increased to $115. I sent the $115, and was still denied. Costs to Sheriffs for issuing permits should remain the same after SB 24 goes into effect.

Moreover it is for a 5 year permit where very few permits exceed 2-4 years now. Even if a Sheriff charges the maximum amount, the actual cost per year would be $20. If a Sheriff issued a permit for free before SB 24 goes into effect, they can still do it after uniform standards are put into effect. The bill also sets a MAXIMUM renewal fee that is not in existence today of only $50 and those with existing permits will be allowed to get renewals AFTER their permits run out or 2007.
____________________

Misinformation: The training certificate is only good for 10 years
and permit holders will have to repeat their training.

What Senate Bill 24 really says: Training requirements ONLY apply to new applicants who are applying initially. There is no training certificate for renewals required, including those who hold permits currently who will only have to renew their permits after they expire or in 2007 whichever comes first.

____________________

Misinformation: Senate Bill 24 will require Sheriffs to enter permit
holders into the criminal database system, thus creating a central
registry of gun owners/permit holders and placing them into the
system as if they were criminals.

What Senate Bill 24 really says: Current law allows Sheriffs to do
anything they wish with the list of permit holders and information
concerning them. Less than half of those authorities who issue
permits enter this information into the CCIC system, which is an
auxiliary system separate from the criminal registry so that law
enforcement across the state can verify the validity of a permit.

Senate Bill 24 does allow Sheriffs to continue this practice if they
wish, but does not require they do so. Sheriffs in these counties are still accountable to voters and voters can still elect a new Sheriff if they do not like the incumbent's decisions on handling their list of permit holders. In addition, constrains the use of that
information to verification of a permits validity and restricts the
access to a specific name search. These protections do not exist
today. While we would prefer that a better system of verifying the validity of permits, there is no perfect way to do so and ensure that law enforcement officers do not over-react when they see a firearm on a traffic stop and can not verify the validity of the permit as the permits will not be uniform until 2007. This is one item that can be improved later and its necessity will decrease as permits begin to all look uniform and new Sheriffs improve their system of
verification.

_________________

Misinformation: With the K-12 exclusion for permit carriers we are
telling criminals that they can attack a school and meet no
resistence. Current law allows us to carry in public buildings today and SB 24 would allow local authorities to restrict carry in areas where security screening is in place such as courtrooms and jails.

What Senate Bill 24 really says: While it is true that an exclusion
for permit holders to carry outside of their automobile on the
developed property of a K-12 school is included in the bill it also
contains an exception for those "employed as school security
officers." Schools may choose whom they wish to designate as those "employed as school security officers" which could include teachers who hold permits and others. There are also exemptions for traveling through the school grounds, dropping off students and leaving your firearm in your automobile while you are inside. In this respect it provides the same ability to retrieve a firearm from your car if an incident occurs that was afforded the Principle in another state who stopped a school shooting.

Current practice in many jurisdictions prohibit firearms in public
buildings and, in some instances, open areas such as parks. If they wish to keep permit holders from carrying on the premises then they must take measures to keep criminals out these areas, such as jails and courthouses, by providing security screening under SB 24.

Authorities must also provide a place to check the gun while the
permit holder is inside so they can retrieve it before leaving. This
allows the permit holder their ability for self-defense as they
arrive and leave the premises. These are protections not guaranteed under current practice and therefore represents a step forward in protecting law-abiding permit holder.

As gun owners tout that the exclusion in K-12 schools and some public buildings is too restrictive and we prefer something like the state of Vermont's lack of law that allows individuals to carry without permits we must also remember that Vermont is more restrictive concerning public property that is off limits regarding guns. Vermont restricts firearms from all public institutions which includes K-12 and higher education facilities as well as public buildings. The exclusions contained in SB 24 are less restrictive than in Vermont and provides more consideration for gun owners than current practice when they enter a public building.

______________

Misinformation: Senate Bill 24 is a step backward because it only
allows an applicant to obtain a permit in the county where they live.

What Senate Bill 24 really says: Senate Bill 24 is a "shall issue"
bill so that all jurisidictions are required to issue a permit if an
individual meets the criteria. There is also an enforceable appeals
process and the judge can award the individual appealing costs
incurred. Additionally SB 24 not only allows individuals to apply in
jurisdictions where they have a primary or secondary residence, but where they have a business interest or in the jurisidiction that they currently hold a permit. Therefore, if a Denver resident has a permit from another county they can continue to renew that permit in that jurisdiction. We must also remember that cities and counties who have openly offered permits to those outside of their jurisdiction are now changing those policies and refusing permits to non-residents. Not only can they refuse to issue to non-residents they can (and have been) revoking those permits for no reason without refunds. Senate Bill 24 will protect law-abiding citizens from having permits revoked for no reason, a step forward from current law and practice.

______________

Misinformation: Fingerprints of permit holders are not taken for
permit to carry background checks and are not kept on file today.

What Senate Bill 24 really says: Current law only provides liability
protection for permit to carry issuing authorities if they do a
fingerprint based background check. It is a general practice that
they do so and that a copy of those are kept on file to compare to fingerprints taken of arrestees. You'll find that most sheriff's
departments require a full set of fingerprints before they will issue a permit now.

_______________

Misinformation: This is not a "shall issue" because of the naked man provision.

What Senate Bill 24 really says: Right now Sheriffs and Chiefs have total discretion and the only way to appeal is for the applicant to prove that the Sheriff abused his power. There is no way to prove an abuse of absolute power, therefor there is no way to prevail except in exceptional situations..

Under SB 24, the Sheriff must prove by documented behavior that an individual is a danger to themselves or others (by law enforcement records such as 7 calls to a house on a DV or the naked man in the street).

If appealed the burden is on the Sheriff to prove this based on a
preponderence of the evidence. This is a significant improvement upon current law.


:D

[Zak Smith]

Yeah, so tell me again just how not being able to carry on school grounds under SB24 is better than being able to.
-z

[hjrocket]

UTAH recognizes all CC permits from other states.:cool:

[Quartus]

Here's how it's better:


Two steps forward, one step back. A little here, a little there. Keep your eyes on the ultimate goal, on the BIG picture.
That's how the liberals have gotten as far as they have.

It's a good strategy. It wins over time.

Don't complain when it goes our way.


OR, those of you who have been fortunate enough to live in a county that had a good sherriff and good laws can now whine and cry because it was your turn to take that one step back so that other shooters, and ultimately all of us, can take those two steps forward.

[Tropical Z]

tom mauser is SO DAMN CLUELESS!!!!!!!!:barf: ,he does have innocent blood on his hands!
These bills are far from perfect,but ARE a huge slap in the face to the peoples republic of denver!:neener:

[Bulldozer]

RED = NO ISSUE
YELLOW = MAY ISSUE
GREEN = SHALL ISSUE

Sorry, could not find info. for AL and CO should be green.

[Tropical Z]

And what about this talk of fingerprints being provided to the feds? Rumor or fact?

[Quartus]

Actually, that map is encouraging. Think about what it would have looked like 20 years ago.

[Zak Smith]

Quartus,

My question was in response to the CSSA "rebuttal" that vitiaz posted. They totally dodge the question.

-z

[Justin]

And what about this talk of fingerprints being provided to the feds? Rumor or fact? Check the link provided above. Page 14, lines 23-27 deal with fingerprints.

In addition, the applicant shall submit an amount specified by the director of the bureau, pursuant to section 24-72-306, C.R.S., for processing the applicant's fingerprints through the bureau and through the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

I know other states require fingerprints to be taken, I had to get printed when I applied for an Indiana permit. Whether or not those are sent to the feds, I couldn't say. Maybe someone more well-versed in IN law would know.


Regardless, I think that this is a step in the right direction. If there's stuff about SB24 that you don't like, start figuring out a way to get it changed. Incrementalism is the path to take. The antis have been slowly boiling us for years, let's turn the heat up a couple of imperceptible degrees on them.:evil:

[Intune]

Justin's got it. Now that you have the Shall Issue you can work on fine tuning it in our favor. Perhaps at some point down the line when there are 45-48 Shall Issue states and the #' of misused permits remain as tiny as they are now we can press for the 2nd Ammend to be recognized nationwide. No permit needed, if you are found in possesion and are doing so wrongly (felon) busted! Ahhh, one day...

[Russ]

Good news. Hope the reciprocity is easy for all other shall issue states.

[org]

Zak, at present some sheriffs are restricting carry on school grounds as a condition of CCW. So, I guess we really aren't losing that. I agree, we did lose some minor (to me) points, but overall, this bill is MUCH better than those in years past. The requiring of metal detectors for refusing CCW is a perfect example.

I'd rather have had the "may to shall" exchange, but that wasn't going to happen. I've CCW'd for about 6 years, and I'm not going to shed too many tears over this law. This and the preemption law combined are huge steps forward from what we had.

[Zak Smith]

org,

If that is the case, you would not be breaking any law. With SB24, you could be charged with a criminal offense.

Metal detectors and the ability to "check" your gun are only required in state-operated buildings that do not allow carry.

-z

[Frohickey]

Here is another map, though, ATR hasn't updated it since, but it includes Alaska and Hawaii. New Mexico is wrong, and obviously, Colorado is wrong.

http://www.atr.org/graphics/states_shall_issue_large.gif

http://www.atr.org/graphics/states_bush_won_2000_large.gif

[Intune]

Could someone superimpose a Bush-Gore vote map over this one? Hmmmm

[Poodleshooter]

Good job guys!
Now, on to reciprocity!

[Standing Wolf]

Does this mean OPEN CARRY is now "okay" throughout Colorado, unless otherwise posted by a local entity?

Colorado has been an open carry state for years, and remains one today—but numerous jurisdictions have made it illegal. That should now become a thing of the past, although I expect Denver to file law suits left, right, upside-down, inside-out, and every other whichway.

[ahadams]

and we're working on it here in MO as well!

I miss my permit from when I lived in VA!

[Mad Man]

from the Denver ComPost (http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%257E61%257E1253345%257E,00.html)* story:


Wednesday, March 19, 2003 - Gov. Bill Owens signed into law two controversial gun bills Tuesday, angering advocates of local-government control and people who fear the laws will trigger more gun violence in Denver.
.
.
.

"I am disappointed the governor ignored police chiefs and others who understand that what works in rural Colorado doesn't cut it in urban centers," Mayor Wellington Webb said. "Denver and other cities have regulated firearms since the 19th century. This legislation marks a sea change in public policy in Colorado."

SB25 eliminates local gun laws statewide, while giving local governments the discretion to post signs in buildings or a specific area where guns can't be openly carried.

.
.
.

Mauser said he was "very disappointed" in Owens. He accused the governor of quickly signing the law that wipes out local laws without consulting gun-violence victims or police.

"It won't help the war on crime and gun violence," Mauser said. "On the contrary, it will weaken gun laws and take away crime-fighting tools from our police. It will put more guns on our streets, which will lead to more violence and death."


The same peole who wanted an amendment to the state constitution requiring background checks at gun shows -- and usually favor federal gun control laws -- are whining about state pre-empting local gun control laws.

What a bunch of hypocrites.

And to get a concealed carry permit requires a background check more stringent than the Brady Bill ($100 fees, fingerprints, weeks to months of processing, etc.), but somehow this won't stop criminals?!!!

Talk about insincere. It's no wonder we can't trust the anti-gunners.

For years, the anti-gunners have said we should regulate guns like we do cars. Well, that's what these laws do in a sense -- statewide uniformity, and objective standards to get a permit.

Imagine if every locality had different requirements for a drivers license. Well, that was the situation in regard to gun laws and carry permits.



* I'm not sure if the old joke of referring to the Denver Post as the ComPost means it's rotting organic matter, or short for "Communist Post."

[Gray Peterson]

You know, just a thought, but wouldn't the CCW bill being challenged on "home rule grounds" be moot if, say, the CBI were to do all the CCW licensing?

[Bob Locke]

Well, we got it. :roll eyes:

All in all, it is NOT 2 forward, 1 back, but just the opposite.

Read the details.

CSSA trying to spin it makes it no better than it is. They want to claim a "W", and they certainly did win. But for most of us this is NOT better than 48 hours ago.

This should have been a LOT easier, and could have been with a little backbone from the Gov. This bill should have been two pages long: a cover page and then one changing "may" to "shall" in the current statute and including reciprocity provisions.

And I'm amazed at how easily some are taken in, too. It's sort of like at election time when you have an anti-gun "R" running against a VERY anti-gun "D". If the "R" wins, did we?

Same with this bill.

[justice4all]

At first I was opposed to the new CCW law, mainly because it was not as simple as I'd have liked it to be, the change from "may" to "shall" in the present language would have been better.

I'm not thrilled about losing K-12, but let's face it, if the teachers, who have the most at stake over this particular issue, are opposed to allowing themselves and their colleagues to carry, how hard can you really expect the politicians to push for it? But for me personally it's better, because with pre-emption the U of Colorado at Boulder can no longer threaten me with expulsion if I carry there.

My permit, obtained while I was living in Denver, was issued by the police chief of Stratton. It's good for another couple of years, but after that I would have had to go through all the BS of applying again in another jurisdiction, possibly requiring need, or all sorts of references/notarized documents like some sheriffs required. Now it's much easier. I cannot be denied.

The training requirements are about the same as all sheriffs required anyway, so I'm not too upset. My wife recently took a Hunter Safety Course, and it did address handguns, so she should be good to go, now. Previously, Boulder County would not issue to her because she is not yet an American citizen, but this law requires issuance of permits to permanent residents.

So now I can carry openly anywhere in the state. I can enter Denver and Boulder with a so-called assault weapon on my front seat, loaded except for the chamber, and no one can say a thing about it. I can still enter restaurants that serve booze. I never went into buildings with security and metal detectors anyway, so no big loss there. All in all, I'm happy, even though I already had a permit. This law actually allows ME to carry more often.

[Tropical Z]

Again,its not perfect but anything that ruins Mayor webbs day can't be all bad.Lets hope this shuts down the Hitler worshippers in Denver once and for all!!!
Mausers a CHUMP!and the :evil:

[org]

Zak, my point which I didn't make very well at all, is that even though Sheriffs have been issuing they have been free to put any restrictions they want on the permit. At least now that's over. We lost the school ground, but we are able now to carry in many, many places that other states forbid. I realize that's thin comfort, but this law is one of the least restrictive in the country. Hopefully we can make it even better in the future.

Between 24 and 25, things are (generally) looking up.

org

[Kharn]

ROTFLMAO, take a look at where Washington DC is on the map Frohickey posted. I never knew DC was sticking out in the Atlantic Ocean like that, I thought it was on the river.

Kharn

[Frohickey]

At least Colorado has the 'may issue' turned into 'shall issue'. Granted, its not Vermont style, so that gives you and other Coloradoans something to work towards.
No one ever said that changing the CCW laws in Colorado need to be a one time affair. Its time to imitate what the anti-gunners have been doing to us. Time to work it back, one step at a time!
Thats what Texas and Nevada has been doing. Keep in touch with the politicians that supported the bill. Keep in touch with the people that worked to make this bill a reality. Start a planning session on what is the next thing to work on. Thats what the anti-gunners are doing. IF EVERYONE JUST CELEBRATES AND GOES HOME AND NEVER MEETS AGAIN, YOU HAVE JUST WON A REPRIEVE, AND NOTHING ELSE! :cuss:
Time to take the battle on the anti-gunners turf. Start challenging their pet projects. Be it the 50cal ban, or maybe asking the legislature to set aside land for a public shooting range, or asking the legislature to set aside money for gun safety education for children. I like one proposed Arizona law that made the govt liable for crimes commited against a person if the govt disarmed the victim.

[c_yeager]

bills with training requirments always scare me just a little. In most cases the specific training isnt listed in the bill itself. Its one of those "as shall be determined by such and such government entity" I always worry about how easy it would be to make the "training" involve shooting a quarter at 200 yards with your eyes closed. Of course its real hard to argue against training when someone has already suggested it.

[Erik]

Perfect? Nope.

A win for our side? Yep.

We took an inch, some might say lots more, and need to work on that proverbial mile.

Just like the other side does all the time. I worked for quite some time for them. I for one, am glad to see that recently we've compromize3d so that it has begun to work for us.

[general]

Cities gear up for gun applicants - Rocky Mountain News (http://www.insidedenver.com/drmn/state/article/0,1299,DRMN_21_1968317,00.html)
By John J. Sanko And Sarah Huntley, Rocky Mountain News
May 17, 2003
This is a long story with links to other important stuff - so I wont post the whole story.
Also - here are the links:
Denver readies for gun law fight (http://www.insidedenver.com/drmn/state/article/0,1299,DRMN_21_1968378,00.html)
Please check it out - what these rats are up to.

Mayoral candidates oppose state's new gun laws (http://www.insidedenver.com/drmn/state/article/0,1299,DRMN_21_1968316,00.html)
Denver ordinances going by the wayside (http://www.insidedenver.com/drmn/state/article/0,1299,DRMN_21_1968377,00.html) (some lies in here I think re-in city discharges.)