Dangerous flaws in gun database

[esaabye]

Got to love this...

http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_16905635

My fav - "What's more, as many as 20 counties, including populous ones like El Paso and Douglas, don't enter any permit information into the database" Good for them!

[Byte Stryke]

Got to love this...

http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_16905635

My fav - "What's more, as many as 20 counties, including populous ones like El Paso and Douglas, don't enter any permit information into the database" Good for them!


Just fucking wow

[Shock]

[ChunkyMonkey]

The article forgot to mention that most CCW holders are law abiding citizens with background check ever few years required. I expect most professional officers take the same caution when serving an arrest warrant anyway.

Title is very misleading too... typical DP opinionated "news."

[hurley842002]

Bob Beauprez was filling in on the Caplis and Silverman show today and was talking about this. If I could find a stream of it online somewhere, I'd post it. Weld County Sheriff John Cooke was a guest on the show, and I must give him a HUGE +1 for his stance on the issue and the 2A in general. You Weld county folk are lucky to have such an advocate for Sheriff (tho i'm pleased with Weaver as well). As pointed out on the Show, the only dangerous flaw in the data base, is the flaw where an Officer pulls someone over who has a valid permit, yet the data base shows it as inactive. Allegedly happened to a gentleman that called in to the show.

Edited to add John Cooke's philosophy is "An armed society, is a polite society", man we need more politically influential folks like that.

[TriggerHappy]

I am surprised that the first 6 comments are for the right to ccw. I am all for it. In AK (where i was born and raised) no ccw is required by state law. Very often I have seen open carry and know of many to ccw. I always recommended for those who had not taken a ccw class, take one, for their safety and knowledge.

[jerrymrc]

As I understand this the database used was at the time the only one that a few counties that were forced to issue permits could dump some information to ID CCH even though there is/was no mandate to do so.

You became a "person of interest" or some such thing because the database was intended to ID a possible criminal. Its use has now spread to the point that some dip shit in Denver thinks it is the CCH database and it is not. I praise Terry for not adding us to it and understanding what it actually is.

[jim02]

Expect to see more of this and dont be surprised when things start to go down hill for the gun owners, we - Colorado F***ed up, no nice way to say it, look at the pieces of shit that we elected to run and represent our state. Could we find any bigger commie love'n liberals in CO then we just put into office, maybe we can get Ward Churchill to run after Hickenlooper is done with us, he can be the cherry on top of our shit heap.

[Troublco]

Some of those comments are outstanding. I think Vermont, Alaska, and Arizona have the right idea, though. It's a shame that the real reason (IMHO) that isn't more prevalent is to control the already law abiding.

[Irving]

I wonder if a person CCW'ing while at an Elementary school used his/her weapon to stop a school shooting would get pardoned, or just thrown in prison and forever be a felon.

I also wonder if a person walking by a school with their CCW during a school shooting just stood there and watched, then when interviewed by reporters on what they saw said, "Well, I have my gun on me, and could have easily stopped this, but stepping foot on school grounds would have made me a felon so I didn't do anything at all. It's too bad all those poor kids had to die." Then just shrugged his shoulders. I wonder how the public would react to that. Not very well I'm guessing. That person would be demonized and called a coward, but no consideration to changing the law would even be mentioned.

[Zundfolge]

The most dangerous flaw in the gun database is its existence.

[hollohas]

As usual, this article is very misleading. What's so dangerous?? There is no Colorado "Gun database". What they are referring to is a record of some CCW permit holders. We all know there is no gun registration in Colorado. But when other anti-gun types read this now, they are going to push to "fix the system" which will turn into creating a gun registration.

Also, to my knowledge, the counties are not even required by law to report their CCW permit issues to any state database...that's why so many don't.

And again, correct me if I'm wrong, but FFL's in Colorado are supposed to turn around and shred your paperwork after your background check comes through and you buy a gun. At least that's what I've been told.

Most people watch too much CSI on TV and think every gun in the country is registered. If they knew that's far from true I think we would have many more people standing up and pushing to make a registry and this type of article could potentially create that problem just because of the misleading headline. [Rant1]

[TFOGGER]

The best way to fix the "flawed" database is to delete it. There is no valid reason for its existence in the first place, and many times, bad information is worse than no information. I'm all for the safety of police officers in the performance of their duties, and if they derive a false sense of confidence from the use of this database, then it unnecessarily places them at risk.

[BlasterBob]

And again, correct me if I'm wrong, but FFL's in Colorado are supposed to turn around and shred your paperwork after your background check comes through and you buy a gun. At least that's what I've been told.


Exactly what paperwork do you believe the selling FFL's are "supposed" to shred after completion of the background check?? Seems like they'd want to retain those records to prove that a background check was executed and the transfer was indeed authorized.

[OneGuy67]

As usual, this article is very misleading. What's so dangerous?? There is no Colorado "Gun database". What they are referring to is a record of some CCW permit holders. We all know there is no gun registration in Colorado. But when other anti-gun types read this now, they are going to push to "fix the system" which will turn into creating a gun registration.

Also, to my knowledge, the counties are not even required by law to report their CCW permit issues to any state database...that's why so many don't.

And again, correct me if I'm wrong, but FFL's in Colorado are supposed to turn around and shred your paperwork after your background check comes through and you buy a gun. At least that's what I've been told.

Most people watch too much CSI on TV and think every gun in the country is registered. If they knew that's far from true I think we would have many more people standing up and pushing to make a registry and this type of article could potentially create that problem just because of the misleading headline. [Rant1]


No, the FFL's are required to keep all paper records for ATF inspection and when they finish with their FFL, they are required to ship all documents to the ATF back east. They cannot put those records into a database, and do hand searches of those records at the request of law enforcement, when so asked.

Initially, when CCW's were inputted into CCIC, there wasn't a code for it, so the agencies began to put them under the code for (outstanding) warrants. This has changed and now there is a code that shows the person has a CCW, when cleared. I remember clearing license plates of vehicles in front of me and the registered owner is automatically cleared through the software. I can't tell you how many vehicles I would see the warrant query code pop up and I would begin to follow them closely while bringing up the data only to find out it was a CCW, then veer off and go some other direction.

[68Charger]

Officials are entering data about a person's race and occupation, for example, and even listing Social Security and driver's license numbers in addition to the actual information requested on the application.People actually give out the SSN on 4473's and Concealed permit app?

My litmus test for if you get my SSN:
are you paying me wages/employing me?
are you loaning me money?

I've never put it on a 4473, and didn't put it on my CHP app... yet I've never been denied.

And I agree- delete the database:
AK, AZ and VT don't require permits for CCW, much less keeping a database of permits issued...

[hollohas]

No, the FFL's are required to keep all paper records for ATF inspection and when they finish with their FFL, they are required to ship all documents to the ATF back east. They cannot put those records into a database, and do hand searches of those records at the request of law enforcement, when so asked.

I guess I was confused. Don't know much about Federal law but the Colorado law only says that records must be maintained by the FFL for pistols and revolvers...no mention of long guns...


12-26-102. Retail dealers - record - inspection.


Every individual, firm, or corporation engaged, within this state, in the retail sale, rental, or exchange of firearms, pistols, or revolvers shall keep a record of each pistol or revolver sold, rented, or exchanged at retail. The record shall be made at the time of the transaction in a book kept for that purpose and shall include the name of the person to whom the pistol or revolver is sold or rented or with whom exchanged; his age, occupation, residence, and, if residing in a city, the street and number therein where he resides; the make, caliber, and finish of said pistol or revolver, together with its number and serial letter, if any; the date of the sale, rental, or exchange of said pistol or revolver; and the name of the employee or other person making such sale, rental, or exchange. The record book shall be open at all times to the inspection of any duly authorized police officer.

[OneGuy67]

deleted.

[hollohas]

Deleted? I guess you read 12-26-102 again and noticed that it didn't say records must be kept of "firearms" sold but it says firearms dealers must keep records of "pistols" and "revolvers" sold...am I right?

[OneGuy67]

No, I read the definition in 12-26-101, which is where you get the definitions of terms used in the statutes. I was going to go into the reason why Colorado doesn't make a big deal out of long gun issues, but I've beaten that to death in previous posts, so I decided to not continue the effort.

[Bailey Guns]

Deleted? I guess you read 12-26-102 again and noticed that it didn't say records must be kept of "firearms" sold but it says firearms dealers must keep records of "pistols" and "revolvers" sold...am I right?

I got news for ya. The federal government, including the ATF, doesn't give a rat's ass about CRS 12-26-102. And, frankly, neither do dealers.

Maintaining records of firearms transactions (by licensed dealers) is controlled by the feds...not the state. Off the top of my head I can't think of any Colorado statute (including CRS 12-26-102) that a dealer won't comply with, in terms of keeping/maintaining records, by following federal law during the sale of a firearm.

To a dealer the process required for selling a single long gun or hand gun is exactly the same (other than checking the buyer's age) and the record-keeping requirements are exactly the same.

[Clint45]

I also wonder if a person walking by a school with their CCW during a school shooting just stood there and watched, then when interviewed by reporters on what they saw said, "Well, I have my gun on me, and could have easily stopped this, but stepping foot on school grounds would have made me a felon so I didn't do anything at all."

He would then be arrested and charged with a felony simply for being within a quarter mile of school grounds with a concealed loaded firearm.

Title 18 U.S.C. §921(25) The term “school zone” means— (A) in, or on the grounds of, a public, parochial or private school; or (B) within a distance of 1,000 feet from the grounds of a public, parochial or private school.

[OgenRwot]

He would then be arrested and charged with a felony simply for being within a quarter mile of school grounds with a concealed loaded firearm.

Title 18 U.S.C. §921(25) The term “school zone” means— (A) in, or on the grounds of, a public, parochial or private school; or (B) within a distance of 1,000 feet from the grounds of a public, parochial or private school.

That law was overturned by the Supreme Court in US v Lopez (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Lopez). States can create laws regarding school zones but the Federal Government cannot.

[Irving]

Thank Jesus, because they just built a school across the street from me and no one asked me first.

[OneGuy67]

That law was overturned by the Supreme Court in US v Lopez (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Lopez). States can create laws regarding school zones but the Federal Government cannot.


Sorry, you are wrong. If you would have read what you posted, you would have known that the law, The Gun-Free School Zone Act of 1990, was enacted under the Commerce Clause which argues that a vilent crime would interfere with commerce (general economic condition), which was why it was ruled unconstitutional. However, The Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1995 used the Interstate Commerce argument of all guns are bought and transported through interstate commerce, and it has been upheld numerous times in various courts.

While I agree it is slight of hand, it is the current law and 18 U.S.C 922(q) is still a valid on-the-books law.