Colorado's 2X Senate CCW bills - so far

labgrade

January 20, 2003, 08:18 PM

No argument regards may issue - which Colorado currently is, by statute, BUT

Denver is the only county not issuing currently - & there's ways around that. Our own Sheriff (Larimer) actually issued to a few folk from Denver - to make a point. Pulled from SAS ranks, I believe.

Some have more restrictive requirements than others.

I would be toot sweet with a single word change from our current statutes - changing "may" to "shall."

Far as RMGO throwing Denver under the bus ('nother thread), I don't see it. I certainly cannot see the entire state taking a huge step back to accomodate an area who .... hmmm, best leave it at that. ;)

I say shoot the moon, pressure your legislators to "do the right thing" & hold 'em accountable if they don't.

Roadkill Coyote

January 20, 2003, 08:21 PM

Kharn, you are quite correct, in Colorado we are all under the "whim" restriction, and even though many have become complacent all our gains could be eroded as quickly as they were made. Both the bills would correct that, with the main differance being that one has some restrictions, and a real chance at passing, the other has neither. Our choice is clear, we can move forward, then go to work on the imperfections afterwards, like the folks in Texas and Virginia, who continue trying to improve on their existant shall issue systems, or we can let the opportunity pass again. How many more years will we let the capital city of our state remain a blight that we try to avoid visiting, where even those who would carry can not?

Billll

January 20, 2003, 08:45 PM

Roadkill has it right. After listening to a report on the two bills, it's true that 63 is "Vermont, with paper", but the Gov. has made it abundantly clear that without training, fingerprints, and school exclusion zones, that he won't sign anything.

Zak Smith

January 20, 2003, 09:04 PM

School exclusion zones?

What'd we chant at TRT a few years ago? Hey Hey, Ho Ho, Gov'ner Owens has got to go!

-z

labgrade

January 20, 2003, 09:08 PM

OK. I can understand the srgument/s, but we currently have no requirement for training, we can carry in schools, state law (which SB25/pre-emption) will clear away most of anything city "home rule" already takes away from you - things that you would "give up" now, to fight for 10 years in the legislature to "get back."

Would it not be more effective and easier, to bunch up & elect a Sheriff who will issue? Everybody else already does, with Denver being the hold out.

& I do agree with you both - we should have shall issue & not have to keep looking over our shoulder, depending on what Sheriff's elected. No argument.

Section 13 (if I've that correct) of our CO BoRs ends up with " .... but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons."

That we have any CCW at all is quite unbelievable. Consider that a statutory "allowance" grants us this boon & that can be taken away just as surely as a change of a Sheriff.

This has been a heated debate for several years - should the rest of us take a hit so Denver gets what the rest already enjoy, or try to force the Denver folk to get with it?

Seriously, no slams intended. It's THE crux of this whole debate.

But consider. CO's got about what? ~4million & only 1/4 of them are screwed ..... what would you do?

John Galt

January 20, 2003, 10:40 PM

Go ahead and move a law through that the Governor won't sign. That will highlight him for replacement among the voters.

How about this:
You are required to take a safetly class.
After taking the class, you are given a card with your name from the instructor and no records or state involvement. You are requested to carry the card, but not mandatory.

Roadkill Coyote

January 20, 2003, 11:24 PM

The idea that you can guarantee continued easy issuance by electing the right sheriff is a treadmill, and if you miss one step because some left feild local issue crops up, you have four years to bone up on your unarmed combat technique. Has anyone here not seen a strange left feild issue crop up in a sheriff's race at some point?

As to pushing Denver to follow the lead of more enlightened locales, if I believed that approach more likely to succeed, I would be all for it. I would like to see Colorado shall issue in the near future, not maybe in my lifetime, so I support the Choulber bill.

As to throwing Owens out over the issue, did anyone here follow the Governors race in Oklahoma, where a split threw the race to a Democrat that no one had heard of two years ago? That strategy has serious risks as well.

Standing Wolf

January 20, 2003, 11:55 PM

According to the rules and regulations issued with my permit to carry concealed hand guns, it's illegal to carry a firearm into a school.

I think the rules and regulations vary widely from county to county—and that's no way to do it.

You are required to take a safetly class.
After taking the class, you are given a card with your name from the instructor and no records or state involvement. You are requested to carry the card, but not mandatory.

If that's a motion, I'll second it!

Zak Smith

January 21, 2003, 12:30 AM

Standing Wolf-

What county is your permit issued from?

As far as I know, CRS 18-12-105.5 does not apply:

3. It shall not be an offense under this section if:
d) The person [...] has been issued a written permit pursuant to section 18-12-105.1 to carry the weapon [...]

So it's not against state law, but your Sheriff might have had you "agree" not to do so. What's he going to do? (Answer: probably revoke your permit.)

-z

Blackhawk

January 21, 2003, 12:59 AM

Well if CO required training and fingerprints, CO can get reciprocity with a pile of other states, and that would mean we could come see 'ya! Tourist bucks and all that, ya know...! :D

Stetson_CO

January 21, 2003, 03:47 AM

Just a note to this...

El Paso County Sherrif Terry Maketa just lowered the CCW age to 21 and the cost to $20 w/ renewal at $20.

The age set used to be 25....

It isn't a state law but it's a good step...

c):{

Bob Locke

January 21, 2003, 07:26 AM

Chlouber's bill only offers one improvement (shall issue) over the current law, while piling on a bunch of added requirements/restrictions. It's a step backwards, all in all. No reasonable argument can be made that it isn't, IMO.

The Lamborn bill essentially does what is needed, in that it simply changes "may" to "shall", while keeping the rest of the current, pretty good, system in place.

What needs to happen is a BUNCH of pressure on Owens to see the light and put everyday people somewhat close to even footing with the criminal element.

Food for thought: What about the people in Denver who live in an inner city environment who cannot afford the classes and higher licensing fees? Aren't they the people who would most benefit from SB 63? Why should someone's right to defend themselves and their family come with a price tag attached? I can pay for whatever class and licensing requirements they can come up with, for the most part, but the poor people who are most-often victimized by crime cannot. Let's keep them in mind along with ourselves, shall we?

Gray Peterson

January 21, 2003, 08:26 AM

Apparently, Denver is going to sue over this. First over the preemption bill that's on the verge of getting passed this year, and second over the shall-issue bills, claiming that it's violating their home rule rights.

Even if a shall-issue law passes, don't count on Denver policy authorities handing out permits. They'll be dragged kicking and screaming, just like Gary Indiana was back in the 80's.

labgrade

January 21, 2003, 09:51 AM

Something's gonna pass this year. I'd just as soon get the best deal we can can.

By starting off shooting the moon (SB63), I'm hoping that we can at the least get a compromise between that & SB24.

63 does allow for reciprocity.

I will be putting pressure on The Guv, but gotta tell ya, he's about as bulletproof as they come - everybody's fave golden boy these days .... sigh. I don't see much pressure we can bring to the table.

WYO

January 21, 2003, 10:05 AM

It seems as though this debate pits the people who have unrestricted carry by virtue of the current system against those who cannot get any rights under the current system. One thing that suffers badly from the current system is reciprocity. I agree with labgrade that the best blend is to get something passed that lets everyone carry with as few restrictions as possible, plus reciprocity potential.

Denver may sue. So what, it's got to get resolved sooner or later. If Denver thinks the home rule charter overrides the legislation, then that means it also thinks that it can arrest someone with a current permit issued by another county.

BTW, Blackhawk, for the last few years, we have made vacation decisions based upon reciprocity.

justice4all

January 21, 2003, 05:36 PM

Reciprocity would be very nice, both for Coloradans, and those who would visit us. That I wholeheartedly support. And I could accept training requirements, if it was no more onerous than that currently used by most issuing authorities as proof of training, i.e., DD214, Hunter Safety Card, NRA cerificate, some even accept "taught by father" as sufficient. But I will not support any bill that reduces the number of places I can carry. I would rather no new law be passed, than have places I can currently carry with impunity changed into places where the same act is a crime.

labgrade

January 21, 2003, 06:28 PM

Well, you'll love the training requirements in 24.

You can have evidence of organized shooting competition or current military, be a certifed instructor, honorable dischartge w/in last 3 years, retired Colodado cop w/in 5 years or retirement, or have a training cert w/in last 5 years AND (drum roll) the applicant shall have discretion in selecting which handgun training class to complete.

So, as it stands, I've had a CO CCW permit for about 4 years, have hunted alone since 6 or so (I'm 50), have reloaded for the past 39 years, was military, was a cop, was on a military anti-terr team ... yada. None of it good except maybe my past IPSC experience which I haven't done in about 15 years, BUT, I can choose "whatever" training class (wanna bet there won't be some "whatever classes" offered?) & then be OK?

I hate idiots who know less than nothing attempting to write legislation.

No elementary, middle or high school carry unless left in the vehicle & in a locked compartment (I don't have a locakble compartment).

Makes me wanna puke, but guess what we'll end up getting, if anything?

Please do push your critters for some semblance of compromise with 63, if not all-out 63 support.

El Tejon

January 21, 2003, 06:47 PM

Lonnie, that's O.K., Gary lost big even resulting in great Indiana Supreme Court precedent for us. Let's hope Denver does just as well!:D

labgrade

January 21, 2003, 11:09 PM

This just in from RMGO:

"Doug Lamborn's Senate Bill 63, the Vermont-style concealed carry bill, will be heard tomorrow in the Senate State Affairs Committee at 1:30 pm, in room 356. Lamborn chairs the committee.

Lamborn's bill is much like the bill offered in the House last year by Dave Schultheis: sheriffs will be forced to issue to citizens who the sheriff cannot prove is ineligible to purchase a firearm.

Sen. Ken Chlouber's bill will also be heard tomorrow. SB24 is the same type of bill Chlouber has run for years, full of compromises and problems. We've posted a comparison of the two bills on our website at:

http://www.rmgo.org/comparison.html

RMGO opposes SB24 in it's current form, and supports SB63. Your efforts, through our massive statewide postcard campaign, should propel the good bill forward.

Can it pass? Let's find out. If we pass it, we set history. Just ignore the naysayers who whine and moan every year about "something that will pass." It's a self-fulfilling prophecy to not help pass a bill while saying "it can't pass."

It's also a good judge of a group's character to see what they do when confronted with the strongest concealed carry bill ever offered. If groups make apologies for the politicians who vote against the bill, you then have a clearer picture of who they work
for: not you, but the politicians.

If you didn't get Sen. Lamborn's mailing (with postcards), you can get it by replying to this e-mail and asking for the Lamborn bill postcards."

And if you need more (we have boxes) to give to friends, neighbors, etc, please just
ask.

Erik

January 22, 2003, 01:35 AM

"If Denver thinks the home rule charter overrides the legislation, then that means it also thinks that it can arrest someone with a current permit issued by another county."

Denver cops are encouraged to arrest whenever possible out of county CCW holders. (Per several Denver cops I have regular contact with.) Trust me, Denver's interpretation of "whenever possible" is not something we'd agree on.

labgrade

January 22, 2003, 02:41 PM

CO General Assy (http://www.state.co.us/gov_dir/leg_dir/legaudio.htm) link where you can supposedly listen in to the proceedings. SB63 will be heard in RM 356 at 1:30P today.

I just tried the 356 link & it didn't connect - maybe they have to be saying something fopr us to hear? ;)

Too, by decent enough heresay, the folks on-board/committeee members can get e-mails while at/during committee - let 'em know what you think.

Billll

January 23, 2003, 12:43 AM

Went to the hearings today, and all the usual suspects, from both sides, were there. The NRA had no comments on the bill. SB-63 picked up 7 amendments, all friendly, and repulsed one hostile. It was voted out of Judiciary, and on to appropriations. The new (and improved?) version should be on line in the next day or so.
SB 24 was discussed and cussed by pretty much the same people, except that the NRA favored it. Again, this looks like the politics of the possible, as I have it on excellent authority that the Gov won't sign 63 in it's original form.
The K-12 exclusion is disliked by the gunnies, but the Gov insists it be in any CCW before he'll sign it. My favorite part of 63was the cleverly written K-12 exclusion: It prohibits concealed carry in or around any K-12 school "with criminal intent."
The Gov also demands some sort of training requirement. 24 covers this by allowing any organized regular shooting activity to qualify. I would think that this language, coupled with the addition of "or showing of a valid hunting license" should cover the training.
The fight continues: Keep those cards and letters flowing in support of all three bills; 24, 25, and 63.
NOTE: SB-24 was not voted on today (tabled) by the committe chair. His reasoning was so that opponents could not split their votes for one, and then against the other, trying to defeat both of them while giving everybody a vote in favor of one or the other. He cited the fate of term limits bills in the US congress as an example. He has a point. If all the Dems vote against, and a couple of squishy Repubs decide to kill this, the Repubs could agree to each support different bills, killing both, while allowing each to claim support for CCW.

Used car dealers got noyhing on these guys.

Zak Smith

January 23, 2003, 01:01 AM

Billl,

Thanks for th report.

Zak

labgrade

January 23, 2003, 01:05 AM

Thanks for the write-up, Billllllllll ;) Are you on CORKBA? You're spot on if you are who I suspect. Thanks. & even if not, good job anyway.

I never could connect to the MediaFile hearings. Wah! but whadaya 'spect?

Far as I knew before the hearing was that Chlouber's 24 was to be tabled in the event that 63 couldn't "pass muster." Works for me & it can be ammended "up" from it's current yuk premise. We can only hope it doesn't need to go there. In any event (as a wandering mind does), there will still be House bills offered when these Senate-things go their way.

Nice to see that the Senate tackled the best bill so far as a test case. Shows some promise.

Funny that The Guv won't sign a CCW bill that allows CCW in schools. We already have that in 18-12-105.5 as a specified allowance with CCW license & the gunnies are stupid to even address it, IMHO = just don't even bring it up as it's already covered. Sleeping dogs, et al, ya know? Although, the "with criminal attempt" could cover it, but "criminal attempt" could be twisted to mean anything they want. No bones, just musing out loud .... Still, why not just leave it as is? (rhetorical)

As I suspected. The Guv won't sign 63 as is, but hopefully, there will be a "compromise enough" to allow things to go on as they already do in CO while still allowing Denver (:barf:) to get theirs. (& really, Denver, you guys ought to take it in the shorts for allowing this crap to go on for so long - flame away .... )

But sorry, Billl, I can't support 24 as written & would rather see it die - as is.

As we stand, I'll go with a modified (within my limits) 63 & take my chances with electing a decent local Sheriff till we get a statewide CCW bill that's worth what we already have.

Good report & thanks.

Waiting for them that do to get up those amendments to say what they did - in legalese ......

& BTW, spot on (again) re your used car salesmen analogy.

Smokey back rooms & all .... :barf:

glirette

January 23, 2003, 01:17 AM

I sure hope you do get a good shall issue law passed. I live in Texas and travel to Utah about once a year. I hold a permit/License in Utah, Texas, Florida, and many others but one of those if not all will probably be reconized by CO if your bill passes. I suspect the UT permit will be valid first as they reconize all permits now.

If you bill doesn't pass I guess open carry is my answer while in CO. If there is anything I can do from Texas please let me know, you have my remote support :)

labgrade

January 23, 2003, 12:43 PM

glirette,

Anyone can already carry concealed in their vehicle whilst plying the CO roadways - one of the .*s in 18-12-105 & don't try open carry in Denver & some other of the "more elightened" municipalities - at least until SB25 passes & that still has an allowance for the "home rule" to prevent open carry within their borders. :barf:
Here's (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/legislature/article/0,1299,DRMN_37_1692821,00.html) a "report" in todays Rocky Mtn Snooze:

(Ms Bartels ..... tsk. "Clobber" is spelled Chlouber from Leadville, not Redivide, & "Eiderdown" is Alderdan. Good job with checking "sources")

"Sen. panel OKs gun permit bill
By Lynn Bartels, Rocky Mountain News
January 23, 2003

A Senate committee approved a concealed-weapons permit bill Wednesday despite testimony from sheriffs and others that it was too broad.

Senate Bill 63, by Sen. Doug Lamborn, R-Colorado Springs, pre-empts local control over the permits and takes away sheriffs' discretion in approving them.

"The issue for us, once again, is local control," said Sam Mamet, lobbyist for the Colorado Municipal League which supports communities setting their own rules.

Larimer County Sheriff Jim Eiderdown told the committee he had good reason for denying permits to some applicants, who would be eligible under Lamborn's bill.

The Senate State Veterans and Military Affairs Committee delayed action on a more restrictive permits bill by Sen. Ken Clobber, R-Redivide. That proposal requires tougher background checks, firearms training and gives sheriffs more leeway in rejecting applications.

Clobber wasn't happy with the tactic and he said he didn't buy Lamborn's explanation that there shouldn't be two similar bills going through at the same time.

Lamborn's bill passed on a 5-1 vote, with Democrat Alice Nichol of Adams County, a pro-Second Amendment rights lawmaker, siding with Republicans.

"Firearms are legal," she said.

The lone dissenter was Sen. Moe Keller, D-Wheat Ridge.

"This is bad public policy for Colorado. The question to ask is: Does it make it safer?" she said. "More guns are not better than less guns. We will not feel safer at Little League games, stadiums and post offices.

Current law lets each police chief and sheriff set his or her own standards for carrying concealed weapons."

labgrade

January 23, 2003, 03:34 PM

SB 63 movement - take by RMGO:

But good deal! :barf: NRA, CSSA & FCC all either sat silent or testified against this bill - & these are our "pro-gun" allies in CO???

"Today the Senate State Affairs Committee passed SB63, Sen. Doug Lamborn's Vermont-style concealed carry bill. SB63 now goes to Senate Appropriations Committee.

In a bold move, Senator Lamborn (the State Affairs Committee Chairman) took public testimony on both SB63 and Sen. Ken Chlouber's much weaker SB24, but only allowed voting on SB63 (which is the chairman's perogative). His reasoning: 2 ccw bills would split the vote and might kill both bills. SB24 would sit in reserve.

You can see a comparison of the two bills by going to our website at:

http://www.rmgo.org/comparison.html

You can also track the progress of all firearms legislation by going to our Billwatch section at:

http://www.rmgo.org/billwatch03.htm

Lamborn began his testimony by saying that while his bill wasn't perfect, when he was confronted with issues he "erred on the side of freedom for citizens." Lamborn's bill is quite similar to a 1999 bill as well as last year's House Bill 1242 by State Rep. Dave Schultheis. Schultheis is the House sponsor of SB63.

After the laundry list of anti-gun groups testified against Lamborn's bill, another organization testified against the strongest ccw bill ever offered: the Firearms Coalition of Colorado.

Though the FCC claims to be a pro-gun organization, their reasons for opposing a Vermont-style CCW bill were the same reasons as cited by Colorado Ceasefire: there wasn't enough control over citizens in areas like training, background checks,
fingerprints, etc.

Len Horner, a board member of FCC, said "I think if you turned everyone lose who wanted to carry a gun, those who believe there will be shootings in the streets might be right."

Why is this important? It illustrates how far to the left many so-called gun groups have moved from a principled position. Even when it became apparent that SB63 was going to pass the committee, and thus be THE CCW bill, these groups still either opposed it or sat silent. The NRA nor CSSA testified in favor of SB63, while both supported Chlouber's bill.

RMGO's Northern Colorado Director Ray Hickman testified in favor of SB63, and warned that to buy into many of the compromises (SB24 makes EVERY compromise
we've been fighting to avoid for years) means you accept the anti-gun premises that citizens can't be trusted.

Hickman also warned about the growing issue of entering permit holders into CCIC. For more information on that issue, go to:

http://www.rmgo.org/CCIC.html

SB63 passed on a vote of 5-1, with Democrat Moe Keller casting the lone vote against the measure. Democrat Sen. Alice Nichol voted for SB63 just as she did for
a similar bill in 1999 offered by then-Sen. Marilyn Musgrave and then-State Rep. Scott McKay. The work of these two gun rights stalwarts is still felt in the Capitol.

SB63 is now in line to await a hearing in the Senate Appropriations Committee. Waiting is the operative word, sincethe main members of that committee also are tasked with cutting this year's state budget.

We'll keep you informed of any changes, but check back with our web page often."

Zak Smith

February 21, 2003, 09:30 PM

It looks like SB24 is proceeding, and SB63 is tabled. Here's a link to SB24: http://www.leg.state.co.us/2003a/inetcbill.nsf/fsbillcont/D6D2AD9E8974917C87256C6B005D4177?Open&file=024_01.pdf

SB24 does not allow carrying onto elementary, middle, or high-school grounds. You can leave it in your car, though. It says nothing about universities, and existing state law allows that.

There's a lot of convoluted language to wade through, but it sounds like people who have an existing permit for 18-12-105.1 will be able to continue to carry onto school grounds until our permits expire in 2005. I'm getting this from page 23 lines 23 - page 24 to line 9:

"It shall not be an offense if.... the person at the time of carrying a concealed weapon held a valid written permit to carry a concealed weapon issued pursuant to section 18-12-105.1, as said section existed prior to its repeal; except that it shall be an offense under this section if the person was carrying a concealed handgun in violation of the provisions of section 18-12-214 (3)"

18-12-214(3) is the part of the new bill that will restrict carrying onto elementary, middle, or high-school grounds.

Does anyone else read it this way?

regards
Zak

Bob Locke

February 22, 2003, 09:24 AM

I need to read SB 24 again, but I was under the impression that all currently issued CCW permits would be null and void at some point in the near future (I think July 31 of this year).

This bill stinks to high heaven, but we're gonna get stuck with it. :barf:

Zak Smith

February 22, 2003, 11:27 AM

Bob,

The new bill would become active 60 days after it's passed, and existing permits would expire June 30, 2005, or the original expiration date, whichever comes first. Since my permit expires "at the end of Sheriff Alderden's term", I think I'm good until 2005.

The school restriction kind of annoys me. I often go walking at a park nearby which is adjacent to an elementary school. If I have kids, it'll suck to have to stash it before I go inside.

The private property language in this bill leaves some question in my mind exactly what will be permitted. For state buildings, they must "check" your gun and comply with a bunch of other security requirements if they want to disarm you. For private buildings, it doesn't say that they can or have to do. There is no provision for "Texas 30.06" signage. Maybe they just ask you to leave like they can now.

regards
Zak

Bob Locke

February 22, 2003, 12:25 PM

I think that Chlouber is missing the boat on a LOT of things, and not just those that would affect folks like you and me.

How is a single mother or elderly person living in the poorer sections of Denver (a person who arguably needs a concealed firearm MORE than someone like you or me) supposed to be able to afford the training AND the increased cost of a permit? And shouldn't the cost of the permit really be tied to the administrative fees incurred by the county in processing it?

And there is no way that a law-abiding citizen should have to be fingerprinted in order to be prepared to defend himself or his family. That's just WAY overboard, and IMO is inserted specifically to discourage law-abiding people from even applying for a permit in the first place.

What happens next time a Columbine occurs, and no one is there to stop it? Lord knows the cops won't go in until the shooting stops...

Too much garbage. I'd rather have nothing than this.

labgrade

February 26, 2003, 05:55 PM

"Too much garbage. I'd rather have nothing than this."

Granted, Bob & frankly, I've been recalcitrant in my "professional duties" as well as private this last session. I haven't kept up.

Chlouber has always been an "anything, at any cost" type of guy for CCW. Good enough far as it goes, but why take step back? Huh?

Guess I really oughta get a grip, take another real look at what's proposed & add some comentary here 'n there. CoRKBA's running rampant, etc. ..... needs some coaching.

.... Nuts!

Always said that this year we'll get "shall isuue CCW" whatever the cost ....

Hate to be proved true.

:rolleyes:

labgrade

February 27, 2003, 09:43 PM

From RMGO. Can't argue.

"This week the State Senate passed SB24, Sen. Ken Chlouber's concealed carry bill.

The bill itself passed out of the Senate with 23 votes, 5 more than the required 18 majority.

Since Republicans now control the Senate, and thus decide who is the chairman of the "committee of the whole" Senate for Second Reading, most of the amendments offered
by Democrats were ruled as "not fitting under the title."

Understand what is happening here: the Democrats, mostly from Denver, used just this circumstance 2 years ago as a way to run a series of anti-gun amendments to a concealed carry bill. The Democrats then used these recorded votes to attack sitting
Republican legislators - especially on the "guns in schools" issue - in the 2000 elections.

Though RMGO had worked to add language to prohibit a statewide database of permit holders, which was successful in the Senate State Affairs Committee, Chlouber joined
with hardcore anti-gun Denver Democrat Sen. Ken Gordon to strip that language from SB24. That means that sheriffs can, and will, enter all permit holders into a statewide
database, effectively creating a dangerous persons list, a perfect tool for tyranny.

Sen. Doug Lamborn fought hard to keep the database prohibition language in the bill. Lamborn used a procedure called an "amendment to the committee of the whole" to
force a recorded vote on this issue. 6 Senators voted to prohibit a statewide database of permit holders: Lamborn, Bruce Cairns, Mark Hillman, Andy McElhany, Dave Owen and Senate President John Andrews. For those keeping score at home, this serves as
a list of the stalwarts for gun rights in the State Senate.

We were able to slightly move the training requirement. Sen. Bruce Cairns offered an amendment on Second Reading to change the requirement to have training within the
last 5 years: it has now changed to 10 years. Though this amendment passed, this hardly makes SB24 a good bill.

SB24 was assigned by the House Speaker into the Local Government, a committee with no conservatives. This wasn't by accident.

What is wrong with SB24? Here is a short list:

No database prohibition

Training requirements - hunter safety not included, and there is a 10 year time limit on training.

Fee -- $100 plus $30 fingerprint fee plus the required training makes this bill affordable to Ross Perot, but out of reach for many Colorado citizens.

Safezones - K-12 public schools; any facility that has security personnel and weapons screening devices.

Fingerprint logging - SB24 requires applicants to submit their fingerprints, which are then forwarded to the FBI and entered into their fingerprint database.

Existing permits expire early

Residency requirement - Rather than allow sheriffs to issue permits to non-county residents (which would provide a safety outlet when cities like Denver refuse to issue permits, as they are now threatening), SB24 requires you to apply in your county of
residence. It also fails to allow visiting out of state citizens to apply."

Bob Locke

February 27, 2003, 10:27 PM

:barf: and :cuss:

I hope it does NOT pass. As you said, it's a step backward for the state as a whole.

This stinks.

At least Dave Owen (my senator) voted correctly on the amendments.

I'd cuss, but 1.) this is a "family" place, and 2.) it wouldn't do any good.

Dammit.

labgrade

February 27, 2003, 10:57 PM

What'd ya expect, Bob?

The 'Pubs own the floors & something (read that as "anything") was gonna pass this year.

Political expediency, ya know, & now, they'll all be able to say they're "pro gun." :barf:

Although we've had the "priv" to CCW in schools for the past 10+ years, somehow, they've figured that's a "bad thing" & have erased it with this "better provision."

Good on them.

Too, their level of training isn't & still, with alleged reciprocity, most states won't honor it due to its "deficiency."

Wonderful.

They screwed us with some, dissed us with others while promising something that won't happen.

I was better off with a Utah CCW license.

& we're still a ways off even getting this junk passed.

Hope it dies a slow death ....

Said it for years. CO already has one of the best CCW statutes on the books - of any state (with a permit system). All that need be changed in 18-12-105.1 is "may" to "shall."

How hard is that?

(sheesh!)

Justin

March 6, 2003, 03:21 AM

What's the latest status of these two bills?
I'm looking over SB24, and not really liking a lot of what I see. Three things pop out at me as being undesireable:

1)The rather exorbitant fees
2)The bit where the Sheriff can deny issuance based on standards that aren't all that objective
3)the part about sending fingerprints through the Feds

Now, I can probably tolerate number two, even though it doesn't make the bill true 'shall-issue' it's unlikely that I would be denied a permit.

I could even live with gripe number three. I had to get fingerprinted for my IN carry permit, and my CO driver's license (what's up with that!) So it's likely that the feds already have my pawprint on file.

What I can't get with are the exorbitant fees. I don't make a whole heckuva lot of money, and $130 is a steep price just to get permission.

Would calling and prodding my local legiscritter about these concerns be worth a try? What are the odds that someone could get the fee reduced by the time this thing passes. (Assuming it hasn't already.)

Bob Locke

March 6, 2003, 04:25 PM

Just dashed off a letter to Dale Hall, my representative. Gonna send the same to Dave Owen, my senator:

Rep. Hall,

My name is Bob Locke. I live at *** **th Ave. in Greeley. My phone number is (***) ***-****.

I am writing to urge you to NOT support SB 24, a bill concerning concealed carry weapons.

This bill is a step in the wrong direction for the law-abiding citizens of Weld County. It places restrictions on us that no person who understands and honors the Constitution of the United States could possibly go along with.

The thought that I may have to be fingerprinted in order to provide for the safety of myself and my family is totally foreign to me. I did not serve my country for 13 years in the Navy just to sit by and watch the state government treat me, an honest, hard-working veteran, like a criminal.

I also object strongly to the creation of a state-wide database of concealed weapon permit carriers. This information should be kept at the level of the issuer of the permit; no one else needs to have access to it for any legitimate purpose. If a CCW permit holder is stopped by the police or sheriff's department, it may lead to a confrontation that otherwise would never have occurred.

Further, the fees outlined in SB 24 are outrageous. There is no way that it costs the county $100 to process an application for a CCW permit. Why should we be forced to pay extra in order to protect ourselves? The fee should be capped at the actual cost of conducting the background check, which is, in reality, just a handful of dollars. It is no more costly than the instant check used to determine whether or not someone is eligbile to purchase a firearm in the first place. And if the government has no reason to disallow a firearm purchase, then it should not disallow a CCW permit, either.

Also, I have four children, three of whom attend school here in Greeley. I object most strongly to the creation of free-fire zones at our K-12 schools outlined in this bill (and wrongly supported by the Governor). If this bill is passed in its current form, then the criminal element can know, with surety, that they can do as they please at our schools with our children, because there will be zero chance of someone at the scene stopping them.

I urge you to please work to kill this bill, or amend it to more resemble SB 63, which has been tabled. It simply cannot be allowed to go to the Governor for his signature, because it is an affront to the law-abiding citizens of Weld County, and to the Constitution itself.

Respectfully,

Bob Locke