Colorado is now a SHALL-ISSUE state!!!!

Status
Not open for further replies.

Frohickey

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
2,018
Location
People's Republic of California
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.
 
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>
 
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?
 
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
 
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:
 
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.
 
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:
California - @#*#!
Hawaii
Minnesota - bill pending
Iowa
New York
Maryland
Delaware
New Jersey
Rhode Island
Massachusetts

33 states are shall issue!
 
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.
 
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 :(
 
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.
 
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!
 
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.


icon14.gif
 
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?
 
Oops

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.
 
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....
 
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?
 
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? ;)
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top