2017 Gun bills in the Colorado Legislature

[JamesB]

The Colorado Legislature is back in session. A host of pro-gun bills have been introduced. Some are similar to bills that failed in the House last session. Unfortunately, since the House is still controlled by Democrats, the odds of pro-gun bills passing both houses of the legislature are not good. However, here are the bills, in case you do want to lobby your Representative or Senator to support them. I am excited about one new bill in the Senate, to repeal the ban on mere possession of switchblade or gravity knives in Colorado. Colorado knife laws are ridiculous. Perhaps something that truly is "common sense" will stand a chance this year.

SB17-005 Handgun Safety Training For School Employees

SB17-006 Concealed Carry For Military Under Twenty-one Years Of Age

SB17-007 Repeal Ammunition Magazine Prohibition

SB17-008 Legalize Gravity Knives And Switchblades

HB17-1036 Concealed Carry In Public Schools

HB17-1037 Deadly Force Against An Intruder At A Business

[DOC]

Nice. I would like to see all the antigun bills introduced in the last 10 years be up for repeal. But the mag ban would be nice so I can order online again at a discount.

[CS1983]

My only concern would be the under 21 military one for the following reasons:

* Very little to any military training is going to cross over to concealed carry, and some would need to be undone in context (i.e., the guy whose only weapons training is .mil and has yet to understand the differences vs carry in public).
* The threat to .mil members seems to be largely on post, if terrorist actions serve as a guide. The state has no authority to authorize CCW on post where the largest target concentration is.
* The maturity of a grunt (or any MOS) when he is in his squad w/ an NCO directing can be impeccable -- decisive, obedient, etc. Out on the town? Maybe not. This, if it passes, will be every commander's headache of the month.
* Most of the guys under 21 are below NCO ranks and live in the barracks if not married. They either don't have the ability to store their CCW piece except in the arms room (good luck getting that out whenever they want) or would have to store it at a buddy's place -- this would violate current CO law and potentially unit/Division rules = nice thought, but impractical. It would be akin to the legalization of marijuana for many guys and gals at Carson, where the majority of under 21 .mil is in the state.
* Why just current and former .mil members under 21? Why not anyone without a criminal history at the age of 18 or over who can pass the required courses?

[Zundfolge]

Not holding my breath on any of them, but we need to force the Dems to shoot these down over and over again so they will stay alive as issues.

[Irving]

M
* Why just current and former .mil members under 21? Why not anyone without a criminal history at the age of 18 or over who can pass the required courses?

This. I appreciate vets and active duty as much as the next guy, but the armed forces specific bills get old and feel cheap.

[CS1983]

This. I appreciate vets and active duty as much as the next guy, but the armed forces specific bills get old and feel cheap.

I agree. I joined and did my time for many reasons, a lot of them selfish, but I never served to be in some special class of citizen. However, if this bill passes and shows that 18-20 year old persons can possess a CCW w/o going all wild west, I would hope it would serve as a stepping stone to extending the responsibility of CCW to their non-military counterparts.

If I had to guess, some of the .mil specific bills are just setting up future legislation.

[Delfuego]

I though you still have to be 21yo just to own a handgun.

[Great-Kazoo]

I though you still have to be 21yo just to own a handgun.

21 to buy one through a FFL, you can own one under 21. Given as a gift, inherited etc

[cstone]

I know we aren't there yet, but Constitutional Carry would be nice. Just model it after the Wyoming legislation.

[Zundfolge]

I know we aren't there yet, but Constitutional Carry would be nice. Just model it after the Wyoming legislation.

I prefer they model it after the Kansas legislation.

Wyoming only allows constitutional carry for Wyoming residents ... Kansas allows anyone allowed to legally own a gun to carry it (resident or not).

[SG1]

We are rooting for you guys in NV, Give the grabbers and the cucks HELL!

[Skip]

Not holding my breath on any of them, but we need to force the Dems to shoot these down over and over again so they will stay alive as issues.

Is that you Dudley?

(J/K)

The most important one on that list is overturning the mag ban.

[TFOGGER]

SB17-007 Repeal Ammunition Magazine Prohibition

SB17-008 Legalize Gravity Knives And Switchblades

HB17-1036 Concealed Carry In Public Schools

HB17-1037 Deadly Force Against An Intruder At A Business

I care most about these, as a business owner, sporting rifle/G17 owner, concealed carrier, and knife dealer. Time to ramp up the email/snail mail/fax machine. Again. I'm not holding my breath, but you can't win if you don't try...

[Eric P]

We also need a bill to remove gun mufflers as deadly weapons and recognise them as a gun accessory for lowering the noise emitted.

[Eric P]

We should ask the law makers how many criminals that carry concealed had a permit to carry concealed.

They say they want common sense laws. Well common sense says criminals don't give a fuck about laws nor obtaining permits.

[Aloha_Shooter]

We also need a bill to remove gun mufflers as deadly weapons and recognise them as a gun accessory for lowering the noise emitted.

Agreed but that needs to be a national effort or we still have an issue with BATFE and the FFLs who would otherwise sell the products.

[JamesB]

Hearings have been scheduled for two of the gun bills, SB17-005 (Handgun Safety Training for School Employees) is scheduled for January 24th. The hearing will start after the Senate finishes its business. SB17-007 (Repeal Ammunition Magazine Prohibition) is scheduled for January 31st, also to start upon adjournment of the Senate. Both will be heard by the Senate State, Veterans, and Military Affairs committee. The members of the committee are Ray Scott (R), Vicki Marble (R), Lois Court (D), Stephen Fenberg (D) and Jerry Sonnenberg (R).

[roberth]

Thank you JamesB for your updates.

[CS1983]

Would assume the (R) will be in favor for our side. Any idea on the (D)?

Would like to send a nice, formal groveling letter/email/call to the (D) folks

[DOC]

Last time I went to the hearing regarding the Magazine Bans there was 3 D's and 2 R's and I knew the vote was going to split down party lines when all the Democrats were more interested in stuffing their faces with hamburgers then listening to the people testifying. The R's were so serious they were on the edge of their seats listening to us. Maybe, this time our congress critters will listen and vote for freedom and real life common sense over party line politics? Or if they don't it will at least get out of committee so there can be a proper up or down vote.

[DDT951]

I hope the Republicans refuse to even discuss any tax or fee hike until the Dems give us something we want (i.e. magazines).

Compromise doesnt always mean we give them part of what they want and they give us nothing.

[Jamnanc]

So, the mag repeal passed the vet mil committee, what's the chances?

[brutal]

Agreed but that needs to be a national effort or we still have an issue with BATFE and the FFLs who would otherwise sell the products.

I believe he's referring to the potential passage of the HPA making silencers de facto illegal in Colorado due to our state law providing only an affirmative defense by virtue of their "licensing" at the Fed level.

[Skip]

So, the mag repeal passed the vet mil committee, what's the chances?

We only have one house and we don't have the votes to override Hick, so I would guess nil.

It would be very smart for Dems to support it and start trying to appeal to "normal" folks on issues that don't do anything for them. But they're Dems and they don't give back "progress."

[Jamnanc]

We only have one house and we don't have the votes to override Hick, so I would guess nil.

It would be very smart for Dems to support it and start trying to appeal to "normal" folks on issues that don't do anything for them. But they're Dems and they don't give back "progress."

Wasn't the house veterans and military affairs committee the location of the kill last time though? What has changed?

[Zundfolge]

It would be very smart for Dems to support it and start trying to appeal to "normal" folks on issues that don't do anything for them. But they're Dems and they don't give back "progress."

This is what I've been thinking. IF they were smart they'd let the repeal happen. That would placate 90% of gun owners who wouldn't have as much fire to repeal the Universal Background Check law (which is the most dangerous one for us) or push the state government back red. They could preserve the rest of their agenda if they'd give on this one tiny thing.

Thing is they're greedy ... and the mag ban is classic symbolism over substance so most of them would give up the real power of the UBC law to preserve the silly mag ban. SMH

[DOC]

Repeal them all! Let god sort em out.

[Rucker61]

We should ask the law makers how many criminals that carry concealed had a permit to carry concealed.

They say they want common sense laws. Well common sense says criminals don't give a fuck about laws nor obtaining permits.

Since 2008, the virulently anti-gun VPC has listed just four homicides they consider to be CCW related. One happened in the home; one happened by a security guards who could open carry as part of his job, and the other two didn't result in any convictions.

[Rucker61]

We only have one house and we don't have the votes to override Hick, so I would guess nil.

It would be very smart for Dems to support it and start trying to appeal to "normal" folks on issues that don't do anything for them. But they're Dems and they don't give back "progress."

It's not just that they don't give back progress. They aren't capable of being "smart" about guns. Not only are they ignorant, they revel in their ignorance. That last part just makes them stupid. Yes, I'm looking at you, Rapsheet, and you, DeGette.

[ColoradoMinuteMan]

My only concern would be the under 21 military one for the following reasons:

* Very little to any military training is going to cross over to concealed carry, and some would need to be undone in context (i.e., the guy whose only weapons training is .mil and has yet to understand the differences vs carry in public).
* The threat to .mil members seems to be largely on post, if terrorist actions serve as a guide. The state has no authority to authorize CCW on post where the largest target concentration is.
* The maturity of a grunt (or any MOS) when he is in his squad w/ an NCO directing can be impeccable -- decisive, obedient, etc. Out on the town? Maybe not. This, if it passes, will be every commander's headache of the month.
* Most of the guys under 21 are below NCO ranks and live in the barracks if not married. They either don't have the ability to store their CCW piece except in the arms room (good luck getting that out whenever they want) or would have to store it at a buddy's place -- this would violate current CO law and potentially unit/Division rules = nice thought, but impractical. It would be akin to the legalization of marijuana for many guys and gals at Carson, where the majority of under 21 .mil is in the state.
* Why just current and former .mil members under 21? Why not anyone without a criminal history at the age of 18 or over who can pass the required courses?

If you can carry a gun safely in combat, you can carry it safely down Main Street. It's really not that complicated.

My only problem with this is that the military personnel should have no additional rights than any other person when it comes to exercising their second amendment rights.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (meaning my post is likely full of poor typing and autocorrects using wrong words)

[CS1983]

If you can carry a gun safely in combat, you can carry it safely down Main Street. It's really not that complicated.

My only problem with this is that the military personnel should have no additional rights than any other person when it comes to exercising their second amendment rights.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (meaning my post is likely full of poor typing and autocorrects using wrong words)

Apples and Oranges. How many tours and how many years leading snuffy?

ETA: I agree on your final sentence.

[ColoradoMinuteMan]

Apples and Oranges. How many tours and how many years leading snuffy?

ETA: I agree on your final sentence.

I believe in constitutional carry, so my perspective is that I should not require and qualifier to be able to carry a firearm. There are 10 states with no training requirement to carry a concealed weapon. I've seen no evidence indicating a statistical increase in accidental firearm fatalities in those states as compared to more more restrictive states.

I can't personally speak for any recruit level training other than RTC Great Lakes, but I can tell you that if you come out of that course unsafe to carry a firearm, a civilian CCW course won't make you any safer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (meaning my post is likely full of poor typing and autocorrects using wrong words)

[Irving]

I can't personally speak for any recruit level training other than RTC Great Lakes, but I can tell you that if you come out of that course unsafe to carry a firearm, a civilian CCW course won't make you any safer.


You're missing the point a bit here. It's not about safe gun handling, so much as it is about a completely different mindset of a civilian and a soldier. Civilians aren't updated with an SOP every day and orders to follow. They have to make a decision in how/when to defend themselves, and once they make their decisions, they will be the only ones held responsible.

[Great-Kazoo]

Apples and Oranges. How many tours and how many years leading snuffy?

ETA: I agree on your final sentence.


I believe in constitutional carry, so my perspective is that I should not require and qualifier to be able to carry a firearm. There are 10 states with no training requirement to carry a concealed weapon. I've seen no evidence indicating a statistical increase in accidental firearm fatalities in those states as compared to more more restrictive states.

I can't personally speak for any recruit level training other than RTC Great Lakes, but I can tell you that if you come out of that course unsafe to carry a firearm, a civilian CCW course won't make you any safer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (meaning my post is likely full of poor typing and autocorrects using wrong words)


Glakes class of 74 here ;) When they still has strip clubs and pawn shops outside the gate. Yeah Freedom.

[ColoradoMinuteMan]

You're missing the point a bit here. It's not about safe gun handling, so much as it is about a completely different mindset of a civilian and a soldier. Civilians aren't updated with an SOP every day and orders to follow. They have to make a decision in how/when to defend themselves, and once they make their decisions, they will be the only ones held responsible.

I respectfully disagree, I'm not missing it, I'm disagreeing with It. The concern of how and when to defend yourself extends beyond carrying a concealed weapon. If you are concerned that they lack judgement in how and when to defend themselves then you won't learn that in a handgun safety class which is the only training prerequisite in the state of Colorado to obtain a permit to carry a concealed weapon.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (meaning my post is likely full of poor typing and autocorrects using wrong words)

[Irving]

I went back to read your first post to get my bearings. Sounds like we're all in agreement here, as the underlying point is that since there shouldn't be a requirement to carry in the first place, it doesn't matter if one was in the armed forces or not. I was trying to make the point that carrying in the Army is not the same as carrying as a civilian, but it doesn't even matter within the context of this conversation. Carry on.

[ColoradoMinuteMan]

I went back to read your first post to get my bearings. Sounds like we're all in agreement here, as the underlying point is that since there shouldn't be a requirement to carry in the first place, it doesn't matter if one was in the armed forces or not. I was trying to make the point that carrying in the Army is not the same as carrying as a civilian, but it doesn't even matter within the context of this conversation. Carry on.

Roger that!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (meaning my post is likely full of poor typing and autocorrects using wrong words)

[CS1983]

CMM,
Soldiers are not trained with the same mindset as CCW training should impart. Almost everything is different. A huge amount of military training (which, in this context is Army insofar as the majority of people who would be affected) is not geared toward things like concealing one's firearm, situation deescalation, etc. I'm all for the constitutionality of carrying pretty much everywhere, even open carry. But with rights come responsibility and this society has imparted zilch of that to those 18-20 year olds it would affect. The Army has not prepared them to carry and react responsibly in a civilian context. Perhaps MP's might be different, I dunno. But for the majority of folks who are stationed on Carson: Stack up on a door? Sure. They do that training all the time. ID and engage a target in rapid time? Yes, they can do that too. But you know what their training centers on? Taking the fight to the perceived bad guy quickly and with much violence. The tools and training they've been given are proactive, simply.

I spent 6 years in the Army, and 3 of those in an NCO position as a CPL and then a SGT. 18-20 year old soldiers, as I said before, can be impeccable under leadership and in the military context. Most had never handled a firearm prior to the military, or if they did it was not in the context of carrying. Their training is all they know. That doesn't present a problem for the ideal of constitutional carry, but it does present a problem for its practice. I'm not saying they should be banned from it, but that it would be irresponsible to expect great things simply because they are in the military. That's what the bill in question is really about: the trope that some 19 year old from [insert bumpkin town here] should be able to do whatever cus "he might die overseas for our rights, Ethel!" Sorry, but the Rah Rah Rah, PV2 Jimmy Bob! stuff just doesn't shake out well in practice.

If you re-read my original post on this, you will see that I outlined several reasons this bill is a non-starter for most of the 18-20 year old people residing at Fort Carson (and likely Peterson, Schriever, and any Enlisted on the Academy). You will also see I asked why just military.

I'm all for every day carry everywhere (hospitals, schools, church, the post office, the police station in dearborn michigan (Ha!), etc. But I just believe we should not let strawmen get the best of those young men. Even if the strawman is pointing his straw finger and wearing a patriotic top hat on some recruiting poster.

[Eric P]

If you can open carry without a permit or training in this state, why shouldn't the same apply to concealed carry?

[hurley842002]

If you can open carry without a permit or training in this state, why shouldn't the same apply to concealed carry?

Just a "coat tax" is all.

[ColoradoMinuteMan]

CMM,
Soldiers are not trained with the same mindset as CCW training should impart. Almost everything is different. A huge amount of military training (which, in this context is Army insofar as the majority of people who would be affected) is not geared toward things like concealing one's firearm, situation deescalation, etc. I'm all for the constitutionality of carrying pretty much everywhere, even open carry. But with rights come responsibility and this society has imparted zilch of that to those 18-20 year olds it would affect. The Army has not prepared them to carry and react responsibly in a civilian context. Perhaps MP's might be different, I dunno. But for the majority of folks who are stationed on Carson: Stack up on a door? Sure. They do that training all the time. ID and engage a target in rapid time? Yes, they can do that too. But you know what their training centers on? Taking the fight to the perceived bad guy quickly and with much violence. The tools and training they've been given are proactive, simply.

I spent 6 years in the Army, and 3 of those in an NCO position as a CPL and then a SGT. 18-20 year old soldiers, as I said before, can be impeccable under leadership and in the military context. Most had never handled a firearm prior to the military, or if they did it was not in the context of carrying. Their training is all they know. That doesn't present a problem for the ideal of constitutional carry, but it does present a problem for its practice. I'm not saying they should be banned from it, but that it would be irresponsible to expect great things simply because they are in the military. That's what the bill in question is really about: the trope that some 19 year old from [insert bumpkin town here] should be able to do whatever cus "he might die overseas for our rights, Ethel!" Sorry, but the Rah Rah Rah, PV2 Jimmy Bob! stuff just doesn't shake out well in practice.

If you re-read my original post on this, you will see that I outlined several reasons this bill is a non-starter for most of the 18-20 year old people residing at Fort Carson (and likely Peterson, Schriever, and any Enlisted on the Academy). You will also see I asked why just military.

I'm all for every day carry everywhere (hospitals, schools, church, the post office, the police station in dearborn michigan (Ha!), etc. But I just believe we should not let strawmen get the best of those young men. Even if the strawman is pointing his straw finger and wearing a patriotic top hat on some recruiting poster.

I can understand your position however, I disagree with it. There is. I thing magical that happens between 18-21 to all of the sudden changes you to become anymore capable of responsibly carrying a firearm at the age of 21. A handgun safety course may not teach any of the things that you have mentioned above that military training lacks. Recruit training teaches you more responsibility in a few months than most colleges will teach you in 4 years. Nobody said I expected "great things." I expect that they can carry a firearm safely with negligent discharge, are capable of using reasonable judgment when choosing to use it, make a responsible shot that doesn't endanger others as well as I would any other random person off the street. That's really all you can expect of any random person who took a 6 hour handgun safety class.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (meaning my post is likely full of poor typing and autocorrects using wrong words)

[Zundfolge]

Civilians aren't trained enough ... soldiers aren't trained enough ... Civilian training is different from soldier training ...

Bullshit. All of it is bullshit.

ANYONE can safely carry a firearm by following 4 rules that I imagine the average 5 year old child of any one of our members here can probably quote from memory.

Carrying a gun is not rocket science, you don't need to be a highly trained operator to do it and do it safely. If you have an IQ over 75 you can safely put a gun in a holster and leave it the hell alone unless and until you need it.

Stop over complicating this.


Treat all guns as though they are loaded.
Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to kill or destroy.
Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on target and you're ready to fire.
Know your target and what's behind it.


Seriously, THAT IS ALL that is needed to safely carry a gun. Period.

Carrying a gun is a right, not a privilege and you don't demand expert level training to exercise a right.

[CS1983]

Your post clarifies what you expect, but that's immaterial to what this bill's intention and backing thought is. As I said originally, in the context that such young soldiers are impeccable, the reason is exactly the things they would lack while out and about in the civilian context.

I understand very well what OSUT or Basic/AIT teaches and the changes they impart. I also understand what they fail to impart from 6 years in various capacities -- being a dumb 19 year old private to being a pissed off SGT who had to write up a guy because he did the dumb.

I've asked a CPT friend, who is a company commander, to weigh in when he gets a chance. Hopefully he will.

[hurley842002]

Civilians aren't trained enough ... soldiers aren't trained enough ... Civilian training is different from soldier training ...

Bullshit. All of it is bullshit.

ANYONE can safely carry a firearm by following 4 rules that I imagine the average 5 year old child of any one of our members here can probably quote from memory.

Carrying a gun is not rocket science, you don't need to be a highly trained operator to do it and do it safely. If you have an IQ over 75 you can safely put a gun in a holster and leave it the hell alone unless and until you need it.

Stop over complicating this.


Treat all guns as though they are loaded.
Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to kill or destroy.
Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on target and you're ready to fire.
Know your target and what's behind it.


Seriously, THAT IS ALL that is needed to safely carry a gun. Period.

Carrying a gun is a right, not a privilege and you don't demand expert level training to exercise a right.
Amen brother, and this goes for everyone, military or not, no need to create a privileged class for a RIGHT.

[CS1983]

Civilians aren't trained enough ... soldiers aren't trained enough ... Civilian training is different from soldier training ...

Bullshit. All of it is bullshit.

ANYONE can safely carry a firearm by following 4 rules that I imagine the average 5 year old child of any one of our members here can probably quote from memory.

Carrying a gun is not rocket science, you don't need to be a highly trained operator to do it and do it safely. If you have an IQ over 75 you can safely put a gun in a holster and leave it the hell alone unless and until you need it.

Stop over complicating this.


Treat all guns as though they are loaded.
Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to kill or destroy.
Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on target and you're ready to fire.
Know your target and what's behind it.


Seriously, THAT IS ALL that is needed to safely carry a gun. Period.

Carrying a gun is a right, not a privilege and you don't demand expert level training to exercise a right.

Let's look at this in the context of medical training. It's less emotional for the bubbas.

Army Medics are, generally, studs at keeping a dude alive. Corpsmen too. They also are trained in the context of using those skills in an environment where they cannot be sued for keeping a person alive. They do things after 6 months of training that a paramedic would never dare. Ever. He'd be sued into oblivion for some of the things they do without thinking. Similarly, those whose only training is not only safe weapons handling, but their employment in a military context, would be experiencing a disservice if their training for a CCW process did not address differences in mindset and action.

I don't know why this is so hard to understand and accept.

[roberth]

Amen brother, and this goes for everyone, military or not, no need to create a privileged class for a RIGHT.

Furthermore, there should be NO provision for the government to coerce us to take a class and pay fees to exercise our RIGHTS. CCW and NFA are unconstitutional.

[Zundfolge]

Let's look at this in the context of medical training. It's less emotional for the bubbas.

Carrying a gun for personal self defense is not even remotely analogous to medical training.

So you're saying that before one of us proles should be allowed the privilege of carry we need to get the equivalent training as a SWAT officer?

[ColoradoMinuteMan]

Let's look at this in the context of medical training. It's less emotional for the bubbas.

Army Medics are, generally, studs at keeping a dude alive. Corpsmen too. They also are trained in the context of using those skills in an environment where they cannot be sued for keeping a person alive. They do things after 6 months of training that a paramedic would never dare. Ever. He'd be sued into oblivion for some of the things they do without thinking. Similarly, those whose only training is not only safe weapons handling, but their employment in a military context, would be experiencing a disservice if their training for a CCW process did not address differences in mindset and action.

I don't know why this is so hard to understand and accept.

I mean this with all due respect, but it doesn't matter how many times you try and explains this, I simply don't agree there should be a qualifier to exercise my 2nd amendment rights. Life is dangerous and if I have poor judgement and a lack of self control I can either purposefully or negligently harm people in a lot of different ways. We put 16 year olds in charge of cars which are deadly if misused. Handling a gun safely and responsibly is no more complicated than driving a car. Your view of gun rights and safe handling is far more complicated than I believe it needs to be. You can explain it over and over and you will never change my mind.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (meaning my post is likely full of poor typing and autocorrects using wrong words)

[ColoradoMinuteMan]

I don't know why this is so hard to understand and accept.

You're confusing level of understanding with level of agreement. I think we all understand what you are saying, I just don't agree with you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (meaning my post is likely full of poor typing and autocorrects using wrong words)

[Zundfolge]

You're confusing level of understanding with level of agreement. I think we all understand what you are saying, I just don't agree with you.

+1

[DOC]

I think this is funny. Army grunts are stupid and need babysitting? Is that the assumption that we are suppose to believe when asking if they can carry a gun? They get the best guns if I recall correctly.

[CS1983]

I can explain it, but I cannot make any of you naysayers understand it.

Let me try again:

This bill would have military members 18-20 be allowed to CCW contra their civilian peers vis-à-vis age group. Why? Because there is an incorrect assumption they are somehow more suited to it.

Fact: they're not. None of their training is meant to cross over, is not applicable, and in certain situations would be a liability without a look at how to address the specific differences in being a soldier and being another civilian on the block with a CCW.

Another fact: This bill doesn't mean SHIT to the Division Commander, the Brigade Commanders, the Company Commanders and all the 1SG's and CSM's. Not a crusty turd will be shat out of their care holes. Why? Because the State of CO doesn't make the rules.

Another fact: If this passed, guess who lives in the barracks? the single guys (18-20). Guess who has to register their weapons on post and cannot keep them on post except in the Arms room and that's as massive PITA to get checked out? The single guys. Guess what would be a violation of current Colorado law? Leaving one's weapon in the possession of a buddy off post as a normal thing, so you don't get hosed by the Arms room being inaccessible to check out your personal weapon.

Again, I ask, why not simply make it law that allows everyone 18-20 do CCW? At least then it wouldn't be a hollow bill with Rah Rah PV2 Jimmy Bobb bullshit behind it. At least then, it wouldn't put the commanders on edge and be effectively worthless.

I say again, there is nothing special about young soldiers as concerns the intention of this bill. Nothing.

[CS1983]

You're confusing level of understanding with level of agreement. I think we all understand what you are saying, I just don't agree with you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (meaning my post is likely full of poor typing and autocorrects using wrong words)

Your replies indicate you do not understand what I'm saying. You further seem to be stuck on an aspect that I specifically addressed and don't seem to realize I agree with you that there should be no qualifiers for 2nd amendment.

I also stated that in my final bullet/sentence on my original post.

You're so stuck on an ideal and have no understanding of how the military works, at least in this regard, to understand this bill is simply retarded because it's nothing but window dressing and rah rah BS with no substance or practical application behind it.

[Great-Kazoo]

I can explain it, but I cannot make any of you naysayers understand it.

Let me try again:

This bill would have military members 18-20 be allowed to CCW contra their civilian peers vis-à-vis age group. Why? Because there is an incorrect assumption they are somehow more suited to it.

Fact: they're not. None of their training is meant to cross over, is not applicable, and in certain situations would be a liability without a look at how to address the specific differences in being a soldier and being another civilian on the block with a CCW.

How true. There's a misconception out there that being in the military they have better training when it comes to concealed carry. because, once again they are military trained.

Another fact: This bill doesn't mean SHIT to the Division Commander, the Brigade Commanders, the Company Commanders and all the 1SG's and CSM's. Not a crusty turd will be shat out of their care holes. Why? Because the State of CO doesn't make the rules.



Another fact: If this passed, guess who lives in the barracks? the single guys (18-20). Guess who has to register their weapons on post and cannot keep them on post except in the Arms room and that's as massive PITA to get checked out? The single guys. Guess what would be a violation of current Colorado law? Leaving one's weapon in the possession of a buddy off post as a normal thing, so you don't get hosed by the Arms room being inaccessible to check out your personal weapon.

That's SOP for any on base personnel . Checking on to a few bases as civilians we had to go to armory, log in to SP , log out, etc.

Again, I ask, why not simply make it law that allows everyone 18-20 do CCW? At least then it wouldn't be a hollow bill with Rah Rah PV2 Jimmy Bobb bullshit behind it. At least then, it wouldn't put the commanders on edge and be effectively worthless.

I say again, there is nothing special about young soldiers as concerns the intention of this bill. Nothing.

Agree.

[ColoradoMinuteMan]

Your replies indicate you do not understand what I'm saying. You further seem to be stuck on an aspect that I specifically addressed and don't seem to realize I agree with you that there should be no qualifiers for 2nd amendment.

I also stated that in my final bullet/sentence on my original post.

You're so stuck on an ideal and have no understanding of how the military works, at least in this regard, to understand this bill is simply retarded because it's nothing but window dressing and rah rah BS with no substance or practical application behind it.


I'm all for the constitutionality of carrying pretty much everywhere, even open carry. But...

Your message isn't clear to me because you appear to contradict yourself. You produce a litany of reasons why the military doesn't prepare you to carry a firearm, and also explain that you believe that there should be no qualifier to carry, and then you say "but." If you believe in constitutional carry, there is nothing to add.

If it makes you feel better to believe that I'm an ignoramus, feel free. I'm not here to impress anyone. Have a good evening.

[Rucker61]

Agree.

I'm with you fellas.

[ColoradoMinuteMan]

How true. There's a misconception out there that being in the military they have better training when it comes to concealed carry. because, once again they are military trained


Agree.


I guess my question is, better in relation to what? To conceal carry, it requires only a basic handgun safety class in the state of Colorado. I personally think military recruit level training is equal to, if not better than many handgun safety courses. As mentioned above, there are 4 rules, if you follow them nobody gets hurt.

[DOC]

I say give freedom a chance. It always sounds better on paper to restrict something. I mean common sense says nobody should have a gun and cops will protect you. In reality that is a bad idea and it always falls on its face. I'm not a paid blogger so I don't want to type out a huge reply here so I will keep it short. However, I think that just like any thing in this world its worth keeping a right instead of giving power over to someone else to control. If they screw up they will face the music and pay for it. Can't we just preserve the freedoms we have now for the next generation? Can't we think of the children for once? Imagine if we got rid of a real killer like cars just because they are dangerous. We would all be mountain biking or on mopeds like some third world country. Some may like the idea given the current look of the streets these days but I don't see those guys riding their bikes in the snow even the biggest supporters of gun control and mountain biking (e.g. felons and multiple DUI's ) out there to protect freedom and ride in the snow. They just stay home that day.

[Joe_K]

My opinion.

As American citizens, our Constitutional rights are infringed upon everyday.

On the scale of freedom, acknowledging that ANY group of adults 18+ should have their Constitutional rights reinstated is a move towards the side of liberty, not the other way around.

I do not fall into the Dudley category where "more is less" and "we cannot support the HPA...we need to repeal the ENTIRE NFA"
Doh!!!

If you pulled the Military members out and inserted EMT's, Electricians, Police Explorers, or Law Students I could care less. If it gets MORE good guys guns I'm for it.

I am 100% against
NFA/ Hughes Ammendment
All portions of the1968 GCA
Universal Background Checks

But if we can put forth an effort to undermine any of these unjust, unconstitutional laws by even 0.5% I am 100% in favor those efforts.





Velocitas, Opprimere,
Violentia Operandi

[ColoradoMinuteMan]

My opinion.

As American citizens, our Constitutional rights are infringed upon everyday.

On the scale of freedom, acknowledging that ANY group of adults 18+ should have their Constitutional rights reinstated is a move towards the side of liberty, not the other way around.

I do not fall into the Dudley category of more is less, "we cannot support the HPA...we need to repeal the ENTIRE NFA" Doh!!!

If you pulled the Military members out and inserted EMT's, Electricians, Police Explorers, or Law Students I could care less. If it gets MORE good guys guns I'm for it.

I am 100% against
NFA/ Hughes Ammendment
All portions of the1968 GCA
Universal Background Checks

But if we can put forth an effort to undermine any of these unjust, unconstitutional laws by even 0.5% I am 100% in favor those efforts.





Velocitas, Opprimere,
Violentia Operandi

Exactly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (meaning my post is likely full of poor typing and autocorrects using wrong words)

[Eric P]

I honestly think this is a ploy by the Dems to say the voted for a gun rights bill, or rolled back firearms restrictions in a hope to retain their seat if they are in a contested district. Nothing more than political smoke and mirrors. As pointed out by others, if passed, it would likely not increase the number killing machines on the streets since those newly allowed to ccw can't per other regulations. So in their mind, they supported gun rights, while not true lay allowing more gun rights.

[Joe_K]

There are plenty of 18-20 year old military personal that this bill would effect.

- Married and off post.
- E-4+ and living off post.
- Reservists/Guardsmen
- MP's and Recruiters that are authorized to carry on base/.gov Annex.
- Single guys that have an Apartment out in town, family nearby, storage unit off base, keep their weapons at an acquaintances house etc.

Why shouldn't someone that has far more advanced training on weapons than the average civilian but is equally lacking in civilian world tactics be carrying for their own defense/defense of others? If they take it upon themselves to apply the fundamentals of safety and marksmanship combined with solid vetted CCW minded tactics and equipment selection than that's a win-win for the forces of good.





Velocitas, Opprimere,
Violentia Operandi

[wctriumph]

In the meantime, I have emailed and called every member of both houses of the state legislature and urged them to vote for pro gun laws and a repeal of the magazine ban and to overturn the BGC law for private transfers.

Not that most of them really care what I think.

[beast556]

Does any one know if the mag repeal made it out of the senate today???

[OneGuy67]

They are still hearing testimony on HB 17-1036, Concerning the Permitting the Carrying of Concealed Handguns on Public School Grounds.

[DOC]

how does it look in congress?

[mtnrider]

Mag repeal is dead. (shocker).


.

[CS1983]

re: 18-20 mil/ccw...

Thinking, "maybe I'm crazy...", I talked with a former E-7(p)/SFC(p) who retired after 21 years, with time in a 1SG slot as his final position. His MOS was 11C (mortarman). Explained that this law would allow 18-20 year olds who are in the military or honorably discharged an exception to the 21 year age limit for CCW in CO.

He was in agreement with my all points, except my contention that specifically targeting the military would be more likely to set a commander or 1SG on edge, rather than just all 18-20 year old people. As he put it, "As a platoon sergeant or 1SG, I wouldn't care if it was the military or all, I'd still have to deal with it."

He agreed that:

1) Military training, by and large, has no special effect on civilian ownership and use of firearms -- they're two different animals. As such, the CCW class would be the determining factor in legal readiness w/ no appreciable effect coming from .mil training. Pursuant to this, I'd contend, as I have been, that it should be 18-20 w/ CCW class per the current law, regardless of military association.

2) Snuffy is able to be very responsible in the military context but that provides no guarantee of behavior in the civilian context; "I've seen the blotter reports man."; "young soldiers think they're badasses and it takes some time to make them realize they're not." etc. were quotes as regards that.

3) Military regulations would not bend over for a newly enacted civil law which allows freedoms (for example, it doesn't matter that pot is legal in CO. As far as this goes, no commander is going to bend regs and policies to accomodate more headache for themselves). Thus, the majority of military members in this category would see no benefit. He agreed with my points on both the illegality of storing off post under state law and the regulatory rigmarole of getting one's personal firearms out of the Arms room at will.

The CO NG is ~3500 personnel strong. Of those, I'd guestimate 1000 or less would fall into being affected by this law at the intentional level. Unsure on Reserve units' personnel strength. Unsure on married/on post and off post numbers, but again, the majority would likely be in the barracks.

As such, I contend this law would mainly affect those on Fort Carson, Peterson and the Academy.

In short, this law is akin to nothing more than fluff as it would not have an actual effect on the majority of its target demographic. And that demographic is fairly small as it is.

As for apparent contradiction, I don't see my argument as such (nor was an example given, leaving the accusation baseless).

Young Soldiers will go to their training, particularly if they have no other training -- muscle memory demands this.
That training is not per se suited to the task at hand. It's not that they have bad training or need to be babysat (well, they do, but that's my jadedness talking), but simply that nothing sets them apart from non-military age-group peers.

I simply see no reason for this law. It's like so many other laws as regards the yellow-ribbon rah rah mentality. It's like a legal bill version of the WWP, in that most of its effort will not affect its target raison d'être. At best, it accomplishes not much. At worst, it wastes political capital and provides a mechanism for (D) to put a fake feather in their cap for its support.

[Joe_K]

Im going to borrow a phrase from the Lefts playbook. "If it saves just one life it's worth it"

Would you rather recognize an Americans God given, Constitutionally enumerated right or choose not to because some of them might be irresponsible with that right? Even if it is not recognizing all law abiding 18+ olds as legitimate citizens.

Or because they may not have the ideal level of maturity, training, background, or skill to carry a concealed firearm in public?*

No other age bracket and no other subset of this age bracket has placed more of a sacrifice on the alter of freedom than the 18- 20 year old American Military service member.

These young men are/were responsible for the safety and security and recovery of America's Nuclear arsenal, armed to the teeth with between two and three firearms with one of them being fully automatic, carrying and using explosives. Yet the moment they gear down and rotate out with another group of 18-20 year old American volunteers they are treated like second class citizens in the eyes of the law. No adequate self defense for you! P.S. thanks for watching those atomic weapons and keeping us safe!

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170209/ffcb25c09898e229635eb35116fd58af.jpg




*Hint none of us do, we're all fallible humans.

Velocitas, Opprimere,
Violentia Operandi

[CS1983]

There's plenty of examples of legal oxymorons. For example, the idea that one can be too drunk to consent to sex but apparently able to consent to driving and thus get a DUI.

I'm not against 18-20 year olds w/ CCW. I'm against the ineffectiveness of this bill. One would think that maturity at the automagical age of 21 is the onus for being able to drink, yet I have a feeling that the same sponsor of this bill would blanch if it was suggested to lower the drinking age.

Don't look for consistency in the "law". You won't find any.

[cstone]

To me this is a simple issue. There should be just as much regulation for concealed carry as there is for open carry. How much should anyone need to pay the government to put a jacket on?

Constitutional Carry is the solution to the issue. Sadly, our Democratically controlled state legislature will never be able to see the logic to this position any more than they can bring themselves to accept 16+ round magazines or unsupervised private sales of private property.

[cstone]

To me this is a simple issue. There should be just as much regulation for concealed carry as there is for open carry. How much should anyone need to pay the government to put a jacket on?

Constitutional Carry is the solution to the issue. Sadly, our Democratically controlled state legislature will never be able to see the logic to this position any more than they can bring themselves to accept 16+ round magazines or unsupervised private sales of private property.

[CS1983]

To me this is a simple issue. There should be just as much regulation for concealed carry as there is for open carry. How much should anyone need to pay the government to put a jacket on?

Constitutional Carry is the solution to the issue. Sadly, our Democratically controlled state legislature will never be able to see the logic to this position any more than they can bring themselves to accept 16+ round magazines or unsupervised private sales of private property.

indeed

[ColoradoMinuteMan]

...Thinking, "maybe I'm crazy...", I talked with a former E-7(p)/SFC(p) who retired after 21 years, with time in a 1SG slot as his final position...

He was in agreement with my all points, except...

Not to trump your former E-7 with a current E-9 in the US Army, however, my longest (by elapsed time) friend happens to be a SGM. His beliefs align with mine.

The reality is that it requires absolutely no military background to have an educated position on 18 years olds being trusted to carry concealed. As an American, I'm entitled to my point of view which is that all 18 years olds that can be trusted to purchase a firearm should be allowed to conceal a firearm. There is really no point, in my opinion, of talking about the relationship to military small arms qualification and anyone's ability to legally carry a concealed weapon because I've made it clear my position is that there should be no qualifier.
You've also stated that you feel the same way in regards to no qualifier, which is why I can't understand your desire to expend so much energy convincing us that military training does not qualify you. My read on your posts in this and a couple other conversations is that you have a strong passion to be right, and to disagree with people who agree with you, because they came to the same place as you but taking a different path.

I get that you don't agree with the law, and that's where you and I seem to diverge I our beliefs. Like some others have stated, I'll take every single small win that we can get, even if it means we don't get it all right now. Much like the erosion of our rights has occurred, incremental battles won can lead to winning the war. Most wars worth fighting won't be won in a day.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (meaning my post is likely full of poor typing and autocorrects using wrong words)

[TFOGGER]

There was a time when the drinking age in CO was 18 (and many years before that, not specified), until the Federal government extorted the state into raising it. I'm of the mind that ANYONE deemed to be an adult(of the age of majority, deemed able to vote, drive, sign contracts, enlist in the military, etc.) that meets the requirements under the law, should be able to carry a firearm for self defense. Along with that right goes the responsibility to exercise it responsibly, and makes one subject to the consequences of failing to do so. The Left will never allow this, as the concept of consequences for irresponsible behavior is foreign to their ideology. Military service, while admirable, should not convey any special privileges in this context. Military training may in fact instill a level of discipline not ordinarily found in young adults, but training for the battlefield probably won't translate to civilian self defense scenarios well, as the rules of engagement are dramatically different in a civilian context.

[TFOGGER]

http://cdn.meme.am/cache/instances/folder864/500x/64584864.jpg

[Gman]

Mag repeal is dead. (shocker).


.
Yeah, could see that coming from a million miles away.

[CS1983]

Not to trump your former E-7 with a current E-9 in the US Army, however, my longest (by elapsed time) friend happens to be a SGM. His beliefs align with mine.

The reality is that it requires absolutely no military background to have an educated position on 18 years olds being trusted to carry concealed. As an American, I'm entitled to my point of view which is that all 18 years olds that can be trusted to purchase a firearm should be allowed to conceal a firearm. There is really no point, in my opinion, of talking about the relationship to military small arms qualification and anyone's ability to legally carry a concealed weapon because I've made it clear my position is that there should be no qualifier.
You've also stated that you feel the same way in regards to no qualifier, which is why I can't understand your desire to expend so much energy convincing us that military training does not qualify you. My read on your posts in this and a couple other conversations is that you have a strong passion to be right, and to disagree with people who agree with you, because they came to the same place as you but taking a different path.

I get that you don't agree with the law, and that's where you and I seem to diverge I our beliefs. Like some others have stated, I'll take every single small win that we can get, even if it means we don't get it all right now. Much like the erosion of our rights has occurred, incremental battles won can lead to winning the war. Most wars worth fighting won't be won in a day.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (meaning my post is likely full of poor typing and autocorrects using wrong words)

Do you disagree with the facts I presented re: the impact or lack thereof on the military? Does your current SGM friend? They're not opinion based, but last I checked, Division, Brigade, and Company policies and the logical progression to the position I took: the bill is largely pointless.

The point of talking about the relationship of military training vs what every random Civilian would have, is that the bill only names Military members and Honorably Discharged members in light of that training. I cannot see why else they would single out the military otherwise. In short, the bill's logic is quite skewed. That's perhaps arguable, but to argue against it would be to undercut your own position I believe, since you would have to argue they are more suited than someone else without that training -- you actually did that earlier before you decided to stick to the idea of constitutionality.

I do have a desire to be right, when I have the right position. I'd expect nothing less of anyone else. And yes, how one gets to that position is important. Just like one's math isn't worth a crap if they got to a right answer by an incorrect method -- it might work for that problem, but it doesn't work when rhetorical wrenches are thrown into its mechanism. It's like how everyone rah-rah's over the repealing of Obamacare, but doesn't realize that the Insurance scam which drives up prices to instill a desire for a Socialist Solution is still in place... hello? Donald McFly Trump?(cf. Karl Denninger on Market Watch for background on this example). But it seems to me that those disagreeing with me aren't looking at the practical application of this law, rather the ideal behind it. I don't give much of a hoot for idealism. Sorry.

I'm not against this law for the sake of being contradictory, but because I'm tired of dumb, ineffective laws; from an emotional standpoint, I'm sick of Republicans riding the yellow-ribbon coattails of jingoistic vote currying. Make no mistake, if this passes, the first time (and there will be a first, probably more soon than preferred) some PV2 jackass does the dumb it's gonna be the following kick in the nuts to this larger fight:

Dem: "How, when our best and brightest, highly trained soldiers cannot be trusted with such a privilege as concealed carrying of a firearm away from the watchful eye of his superiors, can we trust an untrained 18 year old?"
Stupid citizen: *nods in agreement*

[Joe_K]

There are already states that allow military members under 21 to carry concealed.

States currently allow law enforcement under 21 to carry concealed off duty.

The left pointing to statistical anomalies and saying "see this is what we warned would happen" does occur, do I care? Should you? Nope. That's just acknowledging that straw men exsist and pedantic leftists will use them.

My argument in favor of supporting this law and others similar is two fold. If they are mature enough to sign a Military contract,- especially during wartime, then they should be treated as the legal equal to any pathetic Millennial 21 year old lesbian art degree graduate that's carrying in Boulder right now.

Saying that Military training is only applicable to Warfighting, is like arguing Cops shouldn't be able to carry concealed off duty because POST training is different than the NRA classes 75% of CCW'ers are using to mall cop ninja their smoke poles with in their Uncle Mikes holster.

If the law passes and Pvt. Stuffy starts shooting people in the mall, or draws on someone because they invade his personal space, or cracks an Army joke that's on him, and him alone, legally, morrally, ethically, and practically.

Travis Haley, Mike Pannone, Mike Lamb, Larry Vickers, Kyle Lamb these are all top notch, highly sought CCW instructors that present theory, tactics, weapons manipulations and safety after decades of exstensive Military careers that are somehow able to differentiate between a gun battle in Somalia, or Afghanistan and the punk asking for your wallet at the 7/11.

Recognizing a threat, eliminating said threat, conducting a post engagement check of downed threat,
checking my six, team mates, my weapon, ammo, person, and bystanders, controlling onlookers verbally and physically. These are all things I learned in the Military. Is the application of force a bit different? The legal consequences different? Scenarios different? You bet, but that's not a whole lot different than sending a three time deployed to Iraq guy to Afghanistan. The military is used to change, improvisation, training for a new mission, understanding or at least coping with different environments and standards.

If people really don't believe there's much crossover from the Military to civilian life, consider the following, we let Tankers drive cars on the freeway, C-130 crew members fly on civilian airliners, former Military fighter pilots fly 767's, reserve MP'S serve as civilian law enforcement and many more examples of overlap that exsist without blood in the streets and weeping and gnashing of teeth that occur when we suggest a Ranger, Grunt, SF, Recon, MP, or Tanker be able to apply what applies and adapt to the rest. But I'm just a dumb Marine Grunt so what do I know.

Velocitas, Opprimere,
Violentia Operandi

[ColoradoMinuteMan]

Do you disagree with the facts I presented re: the impact or lack thereof on the military? Does your current SGM friend? They're not opinion based, but last I checked, Division, Brigade, and Company policies and the logical progression to the position I took: the bill is largely pointless.

The point of talking about the relationship of military training vs what every random Civilian would have, is that the bill only names Military members and Honorably Discharged members in light of that training. I cannot see why else they would single out the military otherwise. In short, the bill's logic is quite skewed. That's perhaps arguable, but to argue against it would be to undercut your own position I believe, since you would have to argue they are more suited than someone else without that training -- you actually did that earlier before you decided to stick to the idea of constitutionality.

I do have a desire to be right, when I have the right position. I'd expect nothing less of anyone else. And yes, how one gets to that position is important. Just like one's math isn't worth a crap if they got to a right answer by an incorrect method -- it might work for that problem, but it doesn't work when rhetorical wrenches are thrown into its mechanism. It's like how everyone rah-rah's over the repealing of Obamacare, but doesn't realize that the Insurance scam which drives up prices to instill a desire for a Socialist Solution is still in place... hello? Donald McFly Trump?(cf. Karl Denninger on Market Watch for background on this example). But it seems to me that those disagreeing with me aren't looking at the practical application of this law, rather the ideal behind it. I don't give much of a hoot for idealism. Sorry.

I'm not against this law for the sake of being contradictory, but because I'm tired of dumb, ineffective laws; from an emotional standpoint, I'm sick of Republicans riding the yellow-ribbon coattails of jingoistic vote currying. Make no mistake, if this passes, the first time (and there will be a first, probably more soon than preferred) some PV2 jackass does the dumb it's gonna be the following kick in the nuts to this larger fight:

Dem: "How, when our best and brightest, highly trained soldiers cannot be trusted with such a privilege as concealed carrying of a firearm away from the watchful eye of his superiors, can we trust an untrained 18 year old?"
Stupid citizen: *nods in agreement*

I don't think we have much disagreement on the impact although I have to admit it's sometimes hard for me to follow the long threads when I'm reading between other activities.

Math is (mostly) a finite science and isn't analogous to opinions. There are only a finite number of ways to get the the right answer. Coming to an opinion based on values, beliefs and understandings is a path that may have an infinite number of solutions. While I may be a constitutionalist and all of my opinions may be driven by my knowledge of the intent of the constitution, Im happy to ally myself with those who come to support the second amendment through a strong belief in self defense, survivalism, service in the military, etc. I can then use that common bond to foster a better understanding in how I came to my conclusions. If I immediacy start telling them they lack comprehension because they don't agree with my nuanced perspective it may even push them farther away from the same decent place we ended up together.

In the same vain, if someone wants to say military training allows someone more exposure to using handguns in a civilian context, I'm supporting of it. Again, I'd rather it was blanket for everyone, but I'll take it. I don't need to throw the baby out with the bath water and say "well I believe in constitutional carry so I refuse to vote to enable permitted CCW because I'll only accept complete victory."


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (meaning my post is likely full of poor typing and autocorrects using wrong words)

[ColoradoMinuteMan]

There are already states that allow military members under 21 to carry concealed.

States currently allow law enforcement under 21 to carry concealed off duty.

The left pointing to statistical anomalies and saying "see this is what we warned would happen" does occur, do I care? Should you? Nope. That's just acknowledging that straw men exsist and pedantic leftists will use them.

My argument in favor of supporting this law and others similar is two fold. If they are mature enough to sign a Military contract,- especially during wartime, then they should be treated as the legal equal to any pathetic Millennial 21 year old lesbian art degree graduate that's carrying in Boulder right now.

Saying that Military training is only applicable to Warfighting, is like arguing Cops shouldn't be able to carry concealed off duty because POST training is different than the NRA classes 75% of CCW'ers are using to mall cop ninja their smoke poles with in their Uncle Mikes holster.

If the law passes and Pvt. Stuffy starts shooting people in the mall, or draws on someone because they invade his personal space, or cracks an Army joke that's on him, and him alone, legally, morrally, ethically, and practically.

Travis Haley, Mike Pannone, Mike Lamb, Larry Vickers, Kyle Lamb these are all top notch, highly sought CCW instructors that present theory, tactics, weapons manipulations and safety after decades of exstensive Military careers that are somehow able to differentiate between a gun battle in Somalia, or Afghanistan and the punk asking for your wallet at the 7/11.

Recognizing a threat, eliminating said threat, conducting a post engagement check of downed threat,
checking my six, team mates, my weapon, ammo, person, and bystanders, controlling onlookers verbally and physically. These are all things I learned in the Military. Is the application of force a bit different? The legal consequences different? Scenarios different? You bet, but that's not a whole lot different than sending a three time deployed to Iraq guy to Afghanistan. The military is used to change, improvisation, training for a new mission, understanding or at least coping with different environments and standards.

If people really don't believe there's much crossover from the Military to civilian life, consider the following, we let Tankers drive cars on the freeway, C-130 crew members fly on civilian airliners, former Military fighter pilots fly 767's, reserve MP'S serve as civilian law enforcement and many more examples of overlap that exsist without blood in the streets and weeping and gnashing of teeth that occur when we suggest a Ranger, Grunt, SF, Recon, MP, or Tanker be able to apply what applies and adapt to the rest. But I'm just a dumb Marine Grunt so what do I know.

Velocitas, Opprimere,
Violentia Operandi

You hit the nail on the head. It's no different than saying a manager at Walmart can only ever be a manager at Walmart because their leadership skills don't apply to any other job outside of Walmart. Why are there all of these efforts to promote the hiring of veterans of because their skills clearly can't apply outside of the military? No different than people saying Trump isn't qualified to be president because he doesn't have a career in politics. Basic skills like discipline, problem solving, leadership, responsibility, following rules and regulations, and hand eye coordination extend to all sorts of various contexts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (meaning my post is likely full of poor typing and autocorrects using wrong words)

[buffalobo]

Has run its course.

Start new thread for bills still alive.