Posted: 2/7/2003 7:31:00 PM EDT
|
via CSSA On Monday, February 10, the Veterans & Military Affairs Committee of the Colorado Senate will consider Senate Bill 24, which establishes a statewide Right to Carry system. Sponsored by Senator Ken Chlouber (R-4), SB 24 will be heard at 1:30 pm in Room 353 of the Capitol. Please call or email the committee members and ask them to support SB24! The anti-gunners are going to be out in force, make sure our point of view is heard, too! Sen. Alice Nichol 303-866-4863 [email protected] Sen. Bruce Cairns 303-866-3432 [email protected] Sen. John Andrews 303-866-3342 [email protected] Sen. Ron May 303-866-4866 [email protected] Sen. Doug Lamborn 303-866-4835 [email protected] Sen. Deanna Hanna 303-866-4857 [email protected] Sen. Maryanne Keller 303-866-4856 [email protected] Also, contact your Senator at (888) 473-8136 and urge them to support Right to Carry, or go to www.nraila.org and use the "Write Your Reps" tool if you are unsure who your Senator is. Aimee |
|
I thought Choulbers bill was the bad one. Wasn't Lamborn supposed to table this until his bill ran its course? I wish they would just wait awhile, either way the bill would not take effect until July 1 so what's the rush? At the risk of this one dying and us being left with none I say let Lamborns bill run its course, If Choulber wants to push this bill then let it die. PS. Choulbers bill is not a shall issue bill. This makes it not a Right to Carry but only a statewide standard bill. Fingerprints would be required of all applicants, the fee is higher than Lamborns, and it is NOT a shall issue bill. Read the bill before you tell your Senator to support it, it may not be much of an improvement over our current situation. Read this RMGO comparison before making your decision. www.rmgo.org/comparison.html Just to be clear RMGO opposes this bill. Edited to add: read the actual text of the bills here: www.leg.state.co.us/2003a/inetcbill.nsf/Frameset?ReadForm&viewname=2&resultformat=1 |
|
Rickyj, thanks for posting this. The CSSA and the RMGO are always at odds over things like this. CSSA says they have the right answer, but RMGO states that CSSA tends to comprimise more and has a result backs bills that aren't always the best choice for gun owners. As a reulst of this, I echo what Rickyj has said. Please look at both sides of this before jumping on the first available bandwagon. We do need to hold out for the best bill, not just the one that has the best chance of passing. |
| In the past Chlouber has always supported the least restrictive and invasive CCW laws. I know that his bill was originally written as a compromise from years of trying. That was why he initially held back when he saw SB63. He would rather it passed, but in the event it fails SB24 is the next best thing. If he waits too long to start 24 in the process, then it may not make it. If 63 fails and 24 is submitted too late we're screwed for another year. I'm sure Chlouber will work to keep 24 back far enough to give 63 its chance. Support 63 but don't expect it to pass. I think that based on the years of compromise that Chlouber has had to deal with may pay off this year. It's not very good, but it's better than current laws IMHO. Pray for 63. Karl. |
|
Sorry Karl, but I have to disagree with you on this. I think Chlouber will do anything to make sure his CCW bill gets the focus. He's been trying for years to get a carry bill passed, and I don't think he has any intention of letting somebody else's bill take the spotlight, even if it is a better bill. Of course, I could be completely mistaken (wouldn't be the first time today  ), but that's how I'm seeing it. |
| I've got to agree with Yankee. Choulber did not hold his bill back, Lamborn held it back as the Chairman of the Veterans & Military Affairs Committee because he "did not think it was wise to have two gun bills on the floor at the same time" Also this years bill is actually more restrictive than last years compromise bill, doesn't seem like a very good compromise to me considering the positive change in the legislative bodies political makeup. |
|
A part of Chlouber's bill I find disturbing reads: A PEACE OFFICER MAY TEMPORARILY DISARM A PERMITTEE, INCIDENT TO A LAWFUL STOP OF THE PERMITTEE. THE PEACE OFFICER SHALL RETURN THE HANDGUN TO THE PERMITTEE PRIOR TO DISCHARGING THE PERMITTEE FROM THE SCENE. That is not under current law, and it seems a little dicey. How are you going to reach for your gun upon the officer's request and not be deemed to be making an aggressive move? Are you going to ask/let him reach for it himself? |
|
I sent an email to each Senator listed at the top of this post regarding my concern for "permittee disarmament". I got a standard boilerplate response from Andrews. Senator Hanna wrote the following: Thank you for taking the time to contact me regarding the issues of local control of firearms and concealed weapons laws. I grew up knowing how to shoot a gun and know the value that many individuals place on owning a gun. I respect that. In Colorado, we have laws that allow guns to be safely stored in home (a lesson I that I learned 50 years ago) and we can carry them in our private vehicles. We also currently have laws that allow local governments to make laws and policies regarding the issuance of concealed weapons permits and where a person may legally carry a weapon. As a citizen and a senator, I do not support the move to pre-empt local control of gun laws and I do not believe that weapons laws are an issue of statewide concern. (Daddy-O emphasis added.) Sincerely, Senator Deanna Hanna District 21 |