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.
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.
,he does have innocent blood on his hands!
