Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Posted: 12/15/2002 8:15:54 AM EDT
What would you like to see in the next CCW bill?

I know we have to face the fact that a "Vermont-style" bill probably won't be passed, even with the current makeup of the state legislature.

I think something along the lines of Pennsylvania's CCW law is a workable model:

- $19 application cost
- background check
- recent photo
- Two references (this could be a problem for people who have just moved here, unless out of state references can be used)

I am against a mandatory training requirement for many reasons. OTOH, I think anybody who carries for defense should take advantage of any training available...voluntarily.

What are your ideas?
Link Posted: 12/15/2002 8:46:38 AM EDT
I agree with you on everything except the 2 references thing. That is such a F'in crock of shit. Why does someone have to vouch for me if I am a law abiding citizen?

I could go out and pay 2 bums to give me a reference.

I am glad we don't have that BS where I live. It is such a feel good BS measure it is rediculous.
Link Posted: 12/15/2002 9:01:11 AM EDT
There will be a training requirement, but it won't require you to shoot for qualification.
Link Posted: 12/15/2002 9:01:28 AM EDT
Defcon,

I think the references bit is BS, too. And for the very reason you gave.

I was just saying how PA does it.
I really don't see why a background check isn't enough to satisfy the "other" side that I'm not a criminal, but it doesn't seem to be. And forget about trying to "cloud the issue" with facts...

I'm just wondering what the folks here would consider "reasonable" when getting a CCW permit.

BTW, I also think fingerprinting is a bunch of hooey. If they want my fingerprints, they can go to the DMV. I've had to give them up everytime I renewed my drivers license. Last time, they scanned it electronically.
Link Posted: 12/15/2002 9:15:52 AM EDT

Originally Posted By ProfGAB101:
There will be a training requirement, but it won't require you to shoot for qualification.



I don't understand why it's necessary.
I'm guessing you're right about this, Prof, but it doesn't make any sense.
Formal training isn't required for a DL, right?
Then why should the state mandate training for a right (CCW) and not for a "privilege" (DL)?
Link Posted: 12/15/2002 9:38:42 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/15/2002 10:22:20 AM EDT by ProfGAB101]
There was a CCW Bill a few years back - S60 IIRC. That is basically what they are going to introduce again, but without alot of the extra BS that was added in committee. WE have the votes, we control the committees, its payback time.

I also think Chlouber is going to be the main author/sponsor if for no other reason that he has pushed this bill every year for over 10 years running. There were also certain requirements set by Owens for an Endorsement and promised signing.

Edit: The training requirement was part of the deal. A DL is a Privilege. CCW is the same - Since the Colorado State Constitution specifically states in Article II, § 13 that:

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 to question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons.

www.archives.state.co.us/constitution/

Remember - When they drafted the CO Constitution Open carry was the norm, no one thought twice when they saw someone openly carrying. Now days people might freak. And the Homie Rulz PC Police in Denver will arrest you on the spot for open carry there. So to CCW we must go, for our own legal protection. BTW I believe the wording also states that a CCW is an Exemption from prosecution, rather than the current affirmative defense to the prosecution.
Link Posted: 12/15/2002 10:26:53 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/15/2002 10:30:46 AM EDT by Yankee1911]
Chlouber did a good job bringing this issue to the forefront over the last several years.
However, Chlouber has also begun to play the political game of "compromise", just to get something passed.

Case in point - SB60 from last year (I'm thinking that it's not the same bill you're referring to, ProfGAB)

SB60 of 2002:
- up to $100 for permit fee (price set by county sheriff)
- fingerprints (price also set by county sheriff)
- pernit fee and fingerprint fee are not refundable in the event of denial of permit
- 90 day processing deadling, after which the sheriff can issue at his/her discretion
- mandatory handgun training (I'm guessing minimum $100 cost)

Maybe I'm being too picky, but I think we can do a hell of a lot better than this.


edited to add: Glad we have a place here to hash this out. We may not agree on everything about Colorado CCW, but maybe we can come to a concensus and help influence how things go this year.
Link Posted: 12/15/2002 10:49:07 AM EDT
Utopia is a myth, and other than Vermont (which due to the lack of permits leaves issues for inter state reciprocation) There is no Perfect CCW law.

Background checks & fingerprinting are always nonrefundable, the rest of the fees should be refundable. BTW that fee was for the First issue, and it will run 3-5 years. (haven't read the current draft.)

I don't like a training requirement, but as long as it isn't cost prohibitive and there is no fire for qualification requirement then I can live with it.

Likewise I don't want it to list firearms I can carry, if I own it I want to be able to choose from any item I own.

I also think that the version to be submitted is already drafted except for the complete list of added sponsors.
Link Posted: 12/15/2002 11:19:39 AM EDT

Originally Posted By ProfGAB101:
Utopia is a myth, and other than Vermont (which due to the lack of permits leaves issues for inter state reciprocation) There is no Perfect CCW law.

Background checks & fingerprinting are always nonrefundable, the rest of the fees should be refundable. BTW that fee was for the First issue, and it will run 3-5 years. (haven't read the current draft.)

I don't like a training requirement, but as long as it isn't cost prohibitive and there is no fire for qualification requirement then I can live with it.

Likewise I don't want it to list firearms I can carry, if I own it I want to be able to choose from any item I own.

I also think that the version to be submitted is already drafted except for the complete list of added sponsors.



Thanks Prof,

I was asking for realistic expectations for a CCW law
This is exactly what I wanted to find out with this thread.

Personally, I'll make a few concessions in my position, if the cost (politically and economically) isn't out of line.
Link Posted: 12/15/2002 11:29:45 AM EDT
I could live with a background check and a gun safety course. I would allow those with current hunter safety cards to be grandfathered in.

Although it is stupid, I would be willing to give up the right to carry in schools.

Is it true you aren't allowed to carry in bars by Federal law?
Link Posted: 12/15/2002 11:52:04 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SS109:
I could live with a background check and a gun safety course. I would allow those with current hunter safety cards to be grandfathered in.

Although it is stupid, I would be willing to give up the right to carry in schools.

Is it true you aren't allowed to carry in bars by Federal law?



I think Hunter Safety courses are a "reasonable" training requirement. When I took the course (over 20 years ago), the teacher was more concerned with gun safety than the best method to gut an elk.

I've never heard of a federal law regarding carry in bars. Amazingly, state carry laws seem to be one of the last bastions of state rights that the feds haven't imposed on...yet.
Link Posted: 12/15/2002 12:12:54 PM EDT
As I have stated before, Hunter Education as a minimum training requirement is not a good idea. The courses are not and have not addressed CCW issues.

I also don't believe personal protection should require training.

How is uniform CCW standards going to affect those who already have a CCW? Are they going to fight the bill or are they grandfathered?

To the best of my knowledge, there is no Federal law preventing CCW in bars.

BTW, Is there any message you want passed to either Chlouber or Miller? Both are on our side.

SRM
Link Posted: 12/15/2002 12:56:40 PM EDT
Yankee 1911,

sorry if I came off a bit harsh, I meant no disrespect to you. I have been frustrated by that is all. Let me buy you a beer.

My sheriff said it was ok to be in a bar with a ccw but I had best not have had even a sip to drink.
Link Posted: 12/15/2002 1:24:44 PM EDT
Defcon,

I didn't see any harshness (is that a word? in your post at all. No problems here.
With or without some kind of law prohibiting carry in a bar, I'd say your sheriff is right. If you have even a small amount of alcohol in your system after a defensive shooting, you would be raked over the coals for it. Better to play it safe.
BTW, I like Guiness if you happen to be buying.

SRM,
I think we may have gone around on this issue at least once. You're correct that the courses don't address CCW issues, but they do address firearms safety. And isn't that the whole point to mandatory training for CCW permits?
I vehemently oppose mandatory training requirements, but I would be willing to give this much to the antis to appease their fragile little minds.
Any legal issues regarding CCW could be handled by printing a booklet (not entirely unlike the little booklet you can get at the DMV regarding driving laws in Colorado).

Can you show me evidence where a state with a mandatory training requirements is safer than one without those same requirements?
And if ypu can't, then why compromise at this point? We have the deck stacked
in our favor at this point.
Link Posted: 12/15/2002 2:11:50 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Yankee1911:
I think something along the lines of Pennsylvania's CCW law is a workable model:

- $19 application cost
- background check
- recent photo
- Two references (this could be a problem for people who have just moved here, unless out of state references can be used)


PA takes 2 references, but they do not even call the people. It is just a formality.
Link Posted: 12/15/2002 2:22:05 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Yankee1911:
SRM,
I think we may have gone around on this issue at least once. Can you show me evidence where a state with a mandatory training requirements is safer than one without those same requirements?




Nope, I can't. I just don't like the idea of any mandatory training requirements, however basic. Basically, I think we are pretty much in agreement, you are just willing to make HE as minimum, I'd rather not see any.

SRM
Link Posted: 12/16/2002 1:07:20 PM EDT
a drivers lic is not required to drive. the constitution gives us freedom of movement within the country. if involved in commerce and you drive across a state line, different story.
within a state...not....now its also not practial to not have one. there is an re-acuring case in idaho thats is constanly thrown out of court. guy is stopped, no lic, ticket issued, thrown out in court.....tilting at windmills can be fun......
Link Posted: 12/16/2002 2:41:25 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SRM:

Originally Posted By Yankee1911:
SRM,
I think we may have gone around on this issue at least once. Can you show me evidence where a state with a mandatory training requirements is safer than one without those same requirements?




Nope, I can't. I just don't like the idea of any mandatory training requirements, however basic. Basically, I think we are pretty much in agreement, you are just willing to make HE as minimum, I'd rather not see any.

SRM



I'm also against mandatory training (obviously ), but I was just trying to gauge what other CO residents would "put up with", as it were.

I'm planning on doing my best to see the least amount of restrictions in the next CCW bill. There are several things that will cause me to fight against another half-assed bill like we saw last time:

- Mandatory NRA training (nepotism anyone?)
- Giving the sheriff final say in approval or denial
- Exorbitant application fees (it seems that other states don't need $100 to process an application)
- Listing firearms to be carried (backdoor registration)
- refusing to honor other states' permits (not in the last bill, but it wouldn't surprise me if they try to add it next time)

There are a few other "sticking" points for me, but these are the main ones.
Link Posted: 12/16/2002 7:49:15 PM EDT
First I wouldn't be willing to accept any provision that would allow a CLEO to have ANY say in approval. That's exactly what we have now and it doesn't work. Second there must be a good appeal process, to ensure a liberal process doesn't get implemented. I would strongly object to either restrictive/prohibitive costs or training requirements. These are just my feelings on the issues most important to me. As for restrictions on where you can't carry, I also feel that this can get too restrictive to the point that a CCW could become near useless. In past years I recall a comittee adding a restriction to carrying in school zones, where a school zone was defined as school property and a radius of 1,000ft. In most urban areas, this meant travel with a CCW would be all but impossible. I saw a map showing the "school zones" in several metro areas, normal travel with a CCW would be flat out impossible. I could understand the school zone restriction if that's what people really wanted and the school zone was only defined as school property. A restriction on carrying concealed while under the influence of alcohol or drugs would only be redundant, since state law already restricts carrying while under the influence concealed or not. And since this would be a "state law" it should include a pre-emption keeping local governments from further restricting when/where/how a person could carry. I obviously would have to see a full text of any proposed bill to be able to decide if I approved overall. But after watching the fight for a better CCW law for the past ten or so years, I'd be happy with almost any must issue type law. In the 32 years I've resided in Teller County, we've had sheriffs that would sign for anything (MG's, silencers, CCW, you name it) and others that would sign for one thing and not another. Personally I'm real tired of the flaky way CCW's are handled in this state. Karl.
Link Posted: 12/17/2002 1:07:16 AM EDT
Damn Karl...were we separated at birth?

I agree with most of the points in your post.
Unfortunately, the "gun-free" school zone ia federal law now, if I'm not mistaken.

It seems like most of us here agree on the basic ideas of what Colorado's CCW law should be. We have to stand our ground on this, otherwise certain groups will send us up the river with no paddle with the idea of "...well, we can always change certain things in the future".
F*** that!!!! We've got the best chance we'll ever have of geting a good CCW bill made into law this year.
Why pass a piece of crap just to say that we've done it?

Link Posted: 12/21/2002 3:25:27 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/21/2002 3:26:55 PM EDT by ProfGAB101]
RE: the issue of schools.

This has been carefully refined and polished. I can't be specific at this time, but I think most people (from the CCW side) will be pleasantly surprised and the anti's will throw a fit once they figure it out.

Training (not hunter safety) and a NCIC's level background check are going to be in there, and you should be glad! Because without this we loose reciprocation with some states. (they don't accept CO CCW for that reason)

Edit cause I can't type NCIC's.
Link Posted: 12/21/2002 6:10:37 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ProfGAB101:

Training (not hunter safety) and a NCIC's level background check are going to be in there, and you should be glad! Because without this we loose reciprocation with some states. (they don't accept CO CCW for that reason)




Are you saying that other states refuse reciprocity because we presently have no training requirement, or because Colorado doesn't use NCIC for background checks?
Link Posted: 12/27/2002 11:23:59 AM EDT
Question for you guys. Are there any counties that will issue, as it stands now, to a non-county resident? Im in El Paso/Boulder as my home counties, but El Paso has a requirement of 25 as does Boulder (I'm 21 Btw). Thanks, Sean
Link Posted: 12/27/2002 1:14:53 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/27/2002 1:16:47 PM EDT by Yankee1911]

Originally Posted By Northwind:
Question for you guys. Are there any counties that will issue, as it stands now, to a non-county resident? Im in El Paso/Boulder as my home counties, but El Paso has a requirement of 25 as does Boulder (I'm 21 Btw). Thanks, Sean



I don't know the answer to your question, but I'd hang tough for awhile. There is talk of a good CCW bill coming up. I'm guessing it won't grandfather current permits in, though.

I'd hate to see somebody dump a bunch of money on a permit that will be no good when a new law is passed.

edited to add:
Welcome to the Colorado forum, Northwind.
Link Posted: 12/27/2002 6:01:59 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Yankee1911:

Originally Posted By ProfGAB101:

Training (not hunter safety) and a NCIC's level background check are going to be in there, and you should be glad! Because without this we loose reciprocation with some states. (they don't accept CO CCW for that reason)




Are you saying that other states refuse reciprocity because we presently have no training requirement, or because Colorado doesn't use NCIC for background checks?



Yes - Exactly, there are a few states which would accept a reciprocation agreement if CO had a standardized criteria with a NCIC's level background check. These states currently only reciprocate on CCW issued to law enforcement, not those to John Q. Public.
Link Posted: 12/27/2002 6:58:12 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Northwind:
Question for you guys. Are there any counties that will issue, as it stands now, to a non-county resident? Im in El Paso/Boulder as my home counties, but El Paso has a requirement of 25 as does Boulder (I'm 21 Btw). Thanks, Sean



I have heard of two counties that will do this, but I don't recall which. I'll see if I can find the posts. Karl.
Link Posted: 12/28/2002 7:19:12 PM EDT
I was talking to the Lake County Sheriff about this the other day. He seemed inclined to issue to out-of-county residents.

SRM
Top Top