View Full Version : Constitutional Carry Act of 2011
DeusExMachina
02-05-2011, 17:47
Again? They only need to introduce it once.
battle_sight_zero
02-09-2011, 21:34
What do you think the chances that this will pass? I am all for self responsibility. I am surprised that there have not been more comments on this and personally would love to read other members thoughts on this.
hurley842002
02-09-2011, 21:38
What do you think the chances that this will pass? I am all for self responsibility. I am surprised that there have not been more comments on this and personally would love to read other members thoughts on this.
I don't think the chances are very high, but with that said, you should contact your State Reps, and at least then you can't say you didn't try.
This is why there weren't more comments in this thread:
http://www.co-ar15.com/forums/showthread.php?t=34292
johngraves2
02-09-2011, 21:56
In theory i like this. I have my CCW permit, the only thing i dont like about the current process is having to pay.
I think some way they need to keep the application process. First, I think you still should have to take a class, education is always good even to those who shoot and carry every day. It can reinforce what you already know, or if can teach the new person basic knowledge that is highly important.
Second, it will insure that only leagal people are leagaling carrying. Yes I know criminals will carry anyway without getting a permit, but having a permit removes the police from questioning if youc an legaly carry and says "hey look at me I follow the law."
Last your finger prints are now on file, so that one person who stupidly comits a crime will now get caught. If you dont plan on commiting a crime why does it matter if your figer prints are on record or not?
I do think they should change it to a small fee like 25-50$ total! and must issue within 30 days.
I know most of you will not agree with my second or third statement, but it is hard to argue with still having a class be manditory, no matter how little the person pays attention in the class.
ghettodub
02-18-2011, 09:24
I'm just kind of pirating what RMGO typed, and emailing this off today:
Hello,
I'm sending you this email today to let you know of my support for HB1205.
This bill is designed to do one thing: allow citizens who are legally eligible to possess handguns to carry that handgun concealed, without obtaining a costly, burdensome and bureaucratic permit.
This bill doesn't get rid of the existing permits. It just gives citizens another option for self defense. That's what I call real freedom.
One of the chief advantages this bill presents is that citizens are not put on any government tracking list merely for carrying the tools for self defense, nor do they have to pay fees for a permit.
I've heard a lot of people say "The Constitution is my permit", but this actually gives teeth to that thought.
Citizens in Vermont, Alaska and Arizona currently enjoy that right, and Wyoming could be joining that list in the next few weeks.
Just as important as what HB1205 does are what it does not do:
Does not repeal or otherwise change Colorado’s existing concealed carry permit law (CRS 18-12-201).
Does not authorize the carrying of a concealed handgun by felons, the mentally ill, juveniles or anyone otherwise prohibited from possessing a handgun under state and federal law.
Does not change where concealed handguns are allowed as defined by CRS 18-12-214.
Does not affect reciprocity agreements with other states in any manner.
Does not affect the ability of prosecutors to pursue charges for other crimes.
This bill is a major step for freedom, and is something every gun owner in Colorado should get behind.
Even if you already have a concealed carry permit (which I do), this bill is still a major advance for freedom, since it wouldn't affect my current permit.
Thank you for your time, and I urge you to support this as well.
Lex_Luthor
02-18-2011, 13:22
email sent.
The Constitution is my petition.
ghettodub
02-18-2011, 13:53
The Constitution is my petition.
sweet, so maybe you should forward it to them. I don't disagree, but unfortunately they don't tend to follow the constitution, so we need to make our voices heard a bit
I was being sarcastic.
That would be the most lazy thing ever.
Jumpstart
02-19-2011, 10:13
This is a good thing.
DeusExMachina
02-19-2011, 10:25
Hopefully the House Judiciary Committee is better than the Senate State, Veterans, and Military Affairs Committee, which has squashed anything related to firearms lately.
How is this going to get past the Governor?
newracer
02-19-2011, 10:45
email sent to every rep
Bitter Clinger
02-20-2011, 09:19
How is this going to get past the Governor?
it wont.
it wont.
Unless it benefits illegal aliens in some way.
johngraves2
02-21-2011, 18:33
I know one of the Co-sponsors, Rep. Priola, very well. I know he will fight hard for this. He and I talked about it the other day.
Byte Stryke
02-23-2011, 11:49
[Byte Stryke],
Thank you for contacting me regarding HB 1205 which as you know would authorize a law abiding individual to carry a concealed handgun without a permit. The bill has been assigned to be heard this Thursday the 24th in the House Judiciary Committee. As the first co-sponsor on this bill I will always defend the right of law abiding citizens to possess firearms as guaranteed in the Second Amendment.
I will work hard to help ensure that this bill passes out of committee and I appreciate you taking the time to contact me in support of this important piece of legislation.
Thanks,
Jerry Sonnenberg
Colorado State Representative
4465 Road 63
Sterling, CO 80751
303-866-3706
www.ElectSonnenberg.com (http://www.electsonnenberg.com/)
ghettodub
02-23-2011, 12:05
I was being sarcastic.
That would be the most lazy thing ever.
I know you were. Sad thing is that I hear so many responses like that, but they never do anything about it
ghettodub
02-23-2011, 12:07
Byte,
Better response than I got. I received one auto-email from Crisanta Duran, saying thank you for your email, and nothing from the rest...
Byte Stryke
02-24-2011, 11:54
Byte,
Better response than I got. I received one auto-email from Crisanta Duran, saying thank you for your email, and nothing from the rest...
did you attach a copy of your DD214 and your voter registration card?
:D
You can track the progress of this legislation here:
http://www.coloradocapitolwatch.com/search5/bill_detail.php?ca=2&bnn=HB11-1205
newracer
02-24-2011, 13:34
I received three responces so far:
One was just a thank you for contacting form email stating their aid would review.
The other two I believe were from the actual rep that stated there were in favor of the legislation, they were co-sponsors, and would continue to fight for 2nd Amend rights.
Byte Stryke
02-24-2011, 16:49
“For us, this issue is not specifically about handguns, it’s about the authority of the regents to govern the University of Colorado’s campuses as set out in the Colorado Constitution,” said Ken McConnellogue, spokesman for the CU System.I Firmly believe in the right of private companies, schools and properties to dictate the policies of their properties. As such all Private Entities would NOT be eligible for State or federal Funds if they do not comply with Constitutional requirements.
I JUST went to send out my email, only to realize that I am nearly 12 hours late. Fail for me. I'll send them one anyway I guess.
ghettodub
02-25-2011, 09:47
Looks like it passed yesterday's hearing, so one step closer!
AK47 Ranger
02-25-2011, 12:37
Im gonna weigh in and say i think CC is a bad idea.
Personally I think it opens the door to any yahoo who thinks carrying a gun will be , cool, fun, or this is going to be the wild west or whatever.
I am not LEO but do consider myself highly trained and think carrying should be left as it is now, concealed and subject to all the constraints it takes to carry as such.
Caveat: By reading this I am going to be in the minority so I am fully open for you all to discuss the pros and cons of it.......Maybe i enjoy the elite status of being able to CCW ( hardly )........ but i just dont see how allowing everyone to carry is going to be better than it is now, other than we all wouldnt be on a state or federal database.
Everyone can carry in their vehicles now, allowing CC won't be any different.
AK47, im interested in your opinion on open carry. Any 18yo and up who can legally own a firearm can open carry a handgun just about any where (no schools, fed buildings...ect). If you think that this House Bill is gonna encourage "yahoo's" to carry a gun and make it the wild west why wouldn't they already?
AK47 Ranger
02-25-2011, 13:04
Open Carry...Why advertise or create attention is my thought. 18 years carry a handgun? You mean 21. sorry im sort on time for this response as i have a haircut to get to.....be back in a little bit. LOL
AK47, im interested in your opinion on open carry. Any 18yo and up who can legally own a firearm can open carry a handgun just about any where (no schools, fed buildings...ect). If you think that this House Bill is gonna encourage "yahoo's" to carry a gun and make it the wild west why wouldn't they already?
yes, colorado state law allows 18 and up to legally carry. I would prefer to CC yet i am not able to obtain my CHP b/c age yet i can open carry dang near anywhere. Surprisingly not many people notice it too (that im aware of).
DeusExMachina
02-25-2011, 13:19
I emailed my rep, I will call when I get off work.
I want to see how far it will go.
AK47 Ranger
02-25-2011, 15:09
Unless the laws and literature have changed the minimum age for concealed carry of a handgun is 21.
yes, colorado state law allows 18 and up to legally carry. I would prefer to CC yet i am not able to obtain my CHP b/c age yet i can open carry dang near anywhere. Surprisingly not many people notice it too (that im aware of).
Im gonna weigh in and say i think CC is a bad idea.
Personally I think it opens the door to any yahoo who thinks carrying a gun will be , cool, fun, or this is going to be the wild west or whatever.
I am not LEO but do consider myself highly trained and think carrying should be left as it is now, concealed and subject to all the constraints it takes to carry as such.
Caveat: By reading this I am going to be in the minority so I am fully open for you all to discuss the pros and cons of it.......Maybe i enjoy the elite status of being able to CCW ( hardly )........ but i just dont see how allowing everyone to carry is going to be better than it is now, other than we all wouldnt be on a state or federal database.
Alaska, Arizona, and Vermont already have very similar laws. Several other states will soon. Those states have not seen an increase in killings because of the laws, so how many states will it take to convince you?
DeusExMachina
02-25-2011, 15:14
In other news, Wyoming moved their bill through the House on Wednesday 48-8.
hurley842002
02-25-2011, 15:24
In other news, Wyoming moved their bill through the House on Wednesday 48-8.
That is awesome!!
AK47 Ranger
02-25-2011, 15:30
Like I stated, thats my opinion. Im a CCW guy who has done his homework and watches this stuff carefully so I know about the stats. All I saying that im not convinced CC is a great idea.
There is already, and again in my opinion.... a serious lack of training for quite a lot of people that have got the CCW permits and i think that CC promotes the potential for unsafe behavior even further. If there is no required permit to get it , no training and no extensive BG than any, Tom, Dick and Harry can just start walking around with a gun tucked in their pants and frankly, that scares me.
I know for a fact that at 21 there was no way I was even close enough to be responsible for ccw ( 40 now )or the ramifications of being in a shoot and thats pretty scary. I know that everyones MMV but its it what it is.
Alaska, Arizona, and Vermont already have very similar laws. Several other states will soon. Those states have not seen an increase in killings because of the laws, so how many states will it take to convince you?
Like I stated, thats my opinion. Im a CCW guy who has done his homework and watches this stuff carefully so I know about the stats. All I saying that im not convinced CC is a great idea.
There is already, and again in my opinion.... a serious lack of training for quite a lot of people that have got the CCW permits and i think that CC promotes the potential for unsafe behavior even further. If there is no required permit to get it , no training and no extensive BG than any, Tom, Dick and Harry can just start walking around with a gun tucked in their pants and frankly, that scares me.
I know for a fact that at 21 there was no way I was even close enough to be responsible for ccw ( 40 now )or the ramifications of being in a shoot and thats pretty scary. I know that everyones MMV but its it what it is.
I admire your ability to not let facts influence your opinion.
So are there any other Constitutional rights that you think should require tribute and government permission?
newracer
02-25-2011, 16:04
Unless the laws and literature have changed the minimum age for concealed carry of a handgun is 21.
21 is to obtain a concealed handgun permit. At 18 you can legally own a handgun and open carry. If this law passed at 18 you could carry concealed.
newracer
02-25-2011, 16:08
Like I stated, thats my opinion. Im a CCW guy who has done his homework and watches this stuff carefully so I know about the stats. All I saying that im not convinced CC is a great idea.
There is already, and again in my opinion.... a serious lack of training for quite a lot of people that have got the CCW permits and i think that CC promotes the potential for unsafe behavior even further. If there is no required permit to get it , no training and no extensive BG than any, Tom, Dick and Harry can just start walking around with a gun tucked in their pants and frankly, that scares me.
I know for a fact that at 21 there was no way I was even close enough to be responsible for ccw ( 40 now )or the ramifications of being in a shoot and thats pretty scary. I know that everyones MMV but its it what it is.
If you are not sure that CC is a great idea then why do you have a permit?
Just because you were not responsible enough at 21 does not mean no one is.
AK47 Ranger
02-25-2011, 16:19
CCW Conceal carry.
CC Constitutional carry.
I didnt say that anyone at 21 isnt responsible enough, I said I wasnt. Furthermore i would say that quite a few would fall under the same catergory. Do you think thats not a fair assement?
does that clear it up?
If you are not sure that CC is a great idea then why do you have a permit?
Just because you were not responsible enough at 21 does not mean no one is.
newracer
02-25-2011, 16:39
I think those that are responsible enough would do so and there would be no problems.
I think those that are not responsible enough probably have other priorities, like spending their money partying, rather than on firearms.
I also think many criminals carry concealed anyways.
I also think many people are not responsible enough to vote or drive a car.
ETA: just because quite a few might fall under the category does not mean the rights of those who do not should be infringed.
Daniel_187
02-25-2011, 16:40
One Thing I don't like about Colorado's CCW program is the damn cost(at least in Boulder County) its around $152 for it not including the class, finger print, and Photo
AK47 Ranger
02-25-2011, 16:43
Look, before you get your panties in a twist even further.
I never said that the facts were anyting other than that. I can read just fine.
Again my point, and I understand our rights and the constitution. I just don't think letting everyone carry a concealed weapon is great idea without some form of training and a BG check.
So the men show up one day to collect my guns...Gee, wonder how I'll be handing them over.........
Does that sound patriotic and a big enough advocasy of our rights under the constitution as a free man for ya?
Ive said enough.
I admire your ability to not let facts influence your opinion.
So are there any other Constitutional rights that you think should require tribute and government permission?
I might point out, all of the arguments against Constitutional Carry have at one time or another been used by the antigunners against CCW with a permit, open carry, even handgun ownership in general.
"Average people don't have sufficient training to carry/own guns."
"Having too many guns in the general public will cause chaos"
"There are too many idiots out there, only the police and military(subtitute "properly trained, or can pass an FBI check") should have guns"
Any of those sound familiar? Yet, since Colorado passed "shall issue" for CHPs in 2003, crime in every category (particularly violent crime) has dropped precipitously, as have gun related deaths. Stupidity tends to be self correcting, thank Darwin...
DeusExMachina
02-25-2011, 16:52
I'm sick of the pre-emptive bullshit. We have laws for a reason.
If some retard attempts to carry and fails miserably, he will get attention from police. if he attempts to carry and shoots someone, he will go to jail for a very long time. Hopefully said retard will have thought about the consequences and either 1) make an effort or 2) not do it. And if he doesn't think about the consequences, then he's obviously going to have done it anyway.
There's no point in restricting rights in an attempt to prevent the future.
AK47, im interested in your opinion on open carry. Any 18yo and up who can legally own a firearm can open carry a handgun just about any where (no schools, fed buildings...ect). If you think that this House Bill is gonna encourage "yahoo's" to carry a gun and make it the wild west why wouldn't they already?
Open Carry...Why advertise or create attention is my thought. 18 years carry a handgun? You mean 21. sorry im sort on time for this response as i have a haircut to get to.....be back in a little bit. LOL
AK47 Ranger, you are dodging the question here. Your thoughts on open vs concealed carry are not the question asked of you. The question was that since open carry is legal now, and has been legal for many years, why haven't your fears already materialized. "Why advertise or create attention is my thought?" is not really an answer. No one is going to get butt hurt about your answer, because they already expect to disagree with you. But please at least attempt an answer.
Also, are you a post bot created by the government with the aim to steer opinion toward the views of the Federal government? [Tooth]
For those who live in the Thornton area, here is the response I received from State Senator Tochtrop.
"I support the concealed carry law as written and feel HB 1205 goes too far. Senator Tochtrop"
DeusExMachina
02-26-2011, 00:09
For those who live in the Thornton area, here is the response I received from State Senator Tochtrop.
"I support the concealed carry law as written and feel HB 1205 goes too far. Senator Tochtrop"
Guess who's not getting votes next election!
So the men show up one day to collect my guns...Gee, wonder how I'll be handing them over.........
Does that sound patriotic and a big enough advocasy of our rights under the constitution as a free man for ya?
Yet you oppose a bill to restore part of our Constitutional rights without bloodshed?
You admit that the facts don't support your position, and you don't mind that its unconstitutional. I guess I'm done here because I can't think of any other way to change your mind.
milwaukeeshaker
02-27-2011, 11:53
Look it's simple you all. AK47 Ranger does not trust his fellow man, he does not believe in the constitution as written, he is one of those gun owners that is our worst enemy, someone who acts like a friend but is just like the rest of the hoplophobe elitists, he is always going to sell us out to the government for "our own good". This man thinks that anyone without his knowledge and training is just a gun toting "bubba". He already has drunk the "koolaid". If the SHTF happened tomorrow, and the gun confiscating raids were to start, he would be the first in line to comply, and then snitch out anybody he knows with a gun. My contempt for those of his kind has no bounds.
Bitter Clinger
02-27-2011, 12:31
Im with you AK47 Ranger! You and I both know that the 2A CLEARLY states "
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Unless the state decides it needs a coat tax, then a normally law abiding citizen shall be treated as the criminals said citizen is trying protect him/her self from.
I can see how you woulndnt want OTHERS who may not have the extra money, or just refuse to be treated as criminals, to exercise their constitutionally GUARANTEED rights because YOU were irresponsible at 21. Obviously Arizona, Alaska, Vermont and wyoming must all have nobody below 40.[ROFL1]
KevDen2005
02-27-2011, 18:20
I think this is a great idea. As an LEO I assume that the person i contact has a weapon anyway for my own safety (this does not mean I search based on that...). I also wish that every state would do this, it is important for people to have these rights, which I am sure we all so firmly believe in. I also think, as has been my experience as an LEO, that people who are legally carrying almost always tell me that they are, which makes me happy that first they respect me enough to do that, and second, they are like-minded thinkers and have taken the steps to protect themselves when I am not present (which is most of the time).
If every state does not follow this, I would really like to see that the US adopt CCW like a drivers license, so that you are valid in every state without worry.
DeusExMachina
02-27-2011, 18:24
Kev, I hope you don't mind me asking this. Does Colorado reference the permit database when looking up someones info? Example, I'm being pulled over, can the officer see that I have a CCW permit?
KevDen2005
02-27-2011, 18:47
Kev, I hope you don't mind me asking this. Does Colorado reference the permit database when looking up someones info? Example, I'm being pulled over, can the officer see that I have a CCW permit?
I certainly don't mind at all, in fact I encourage everyone with questions to ask any of the LEO's on here. We are all for the most part like-minded thinkers and I would say most likely law abiding citizens. I don't want to see anyone trying to do the right thing get caught up in something stupid by accident...
That being said, as far as License Plates go the answer is no. I used to dispatch and was told prior to starting in law enforcement which would be more that six years ago now, CCW info used to be attached to license plate info when a traffic stop is made (when traffic stops made an officer usually calls out a location and plate number). So I don't have that info until I get to the car. It has been my experience that all the CCW holders I have contacted (there are a lot where I work and I am going to find out anyway when I do a check on your name...which is to say it is attached to your name) have provided me with that information immediately. I am less likely to give them a ticket based on the fact of how respectful they are immediately and I always thank them for telling me that info because it makes LEO's much happier people. I have never had a problem with CCW holders.
ghettodub
02-28-2011, 09:31
I was initially all for this bill, but after a lot of thinking, I'm not so sure anymore...
I like the fact that I had to go through some additional training to get mine, and I have a basic understanding of the laws if I have to shoot someone, and how to handle it if I ever have to (and hopefully I never have to).
I know far too many people that can legally purchase a firearm, but are entirely too stupid to carry one.
I do think it's silly that we should have to pay for an additional BG check, because the one to purchase the gun should be enough; if it's not, maybe they should look at the qualifiers on their checks. So if it was just a minimal fee for the permit, fingerprint, and the time to get the permit, than I would support that minus the ridiculous other BG check fee.
One thing I do support is H.R. 822, for reciprocity of permits in all states that issue CCW permits. I just can't support any moron carrying a gun concealed without fully understanding the enormous responsibility...
That's all from me.
DeusExMachina
02-28-2011, 09:53
I was initially all for this bill, but after a lot of thinking, I'm not so sure anymore...
I like the fact that I had to go through some additional training to get mine, and I have a basic understanding of the laws if I have to shoot someone, and how to handle it if I ever have to (and hopefully I never have to).
I know far too many people that can legally purchase a firearm, but are entirely too stupid to carry one.
I do think it's silly that we should have to pay for an additional BG check, because the one to purchase the gun should be enough; if it's not, maybe they should look at the qualifiers on their checks. So if it was just a minimal fee for the permit, fingerprint, and the time to get the permit, than I would support that minus the ridiculous other BG check fee.
One thing I do support is H.R. 822, for reciprocity of permits in all states that issue CCW permits. I just can't support any moron carrying a gun concealed without fully understanding the enormous responsibility...
That's all from me.
When you stop thinking of everyone else as a moron, then you will see this makes sense. But if you can't do that, well, I'm sorry for you.
DeusExMachina
02-28-2011, 10:02
I certainly don't mind at all, in fact I encourage everyone with questions to ask any of the LEO's on here. We are all for the most part like-minded thinkers and I would say most likely law abiding citizens. I don't want to see anyone trying to do the right thing get caught up in something stupid by accident...
That being said, as far as License Plates go the answer is no. I used to dispatch and was told prior to starting in law enforcement which would be more that six years ago now, CCW info used to be attached to license plate info when a traffic stop is made (when traffic stops made an officer usually calls out a location and plate number). So I don't have that info until I get to the car. It has been my experience that all the CCW holders I have contacted (there are a lot where I work and I am going to find out anyway when I do a check on your name...which is to say it is attached to your name) have provided me with that information immediately. I am less likely to give them a ticket based on the fact of how respectful they are immediately and I always thank them for telling me that info because it makes LEO's much happier people. I have never had a problem with CCW holders.
So, once you get their license and registration and make your way back to the cruiser, the CCW information is shown on your computer?
I've been reading Massad Ayoob's book on CCW and he recommends handing over your CCW permit with your license and letting the officer handle it from there. He says immediately coming out with, "I am carrying" can alarm the officer, and saying, "I have a gun" is obviously way worse. What do you think about this?
Also, to keep it on topic, how do you think your routine will change should this become law? Will you ask "Are you carrying a concealed firearm?" when asking for their license/registration?
ghettodub
02-28-2011, 10:05
I've been reading Massad Ayoob's book on CCW and he recommends handing over your CCW permit with your license and letting the officer handle it from there. He says immediately coming out with, "I am carrying" can alarm the officer, and saying, "I have a gun" is obviously way worse. What do you think about this?
That's what I learned in my course, but I haven't been pulled over since then, so I haven't had to do that. Curious on a LEOs take on that as well
So, once you get their license and registration and make your way back to the cruiser, the CCW information is shown on your computer?
I've been reading Massad Ayoob's book on CCW and he recommends handing over your CCW permit with your license and letting the officer handle it from there. He says immediately coming out with, "I am carrying" can alarm the officer, and saying, "I have a gun" is obviously way worse. What do you think about this?
Also, to keep it on topic, how do you think your routine will change should this become law? Will you ask "Are you carrying a concealed firearm?" when asking for their license/registration?
Since I got my permit, I have made it a point to let the officer know "As a courtesy, I should let you know that I have a concealed carry permit. (pause), and I am currently armed. (Or not armed, as applicable.) How would you like for me to proceed?"
The pause allows for it to sink in before you tell the officer that you are armed. I was given this procedure by a Denver cop, who said that he prefers this. Other things you can do at initial contact: Take the keys out of the ignition and place them on the dash, keep both hands in plain view as the officer approaches, and turn on the dome light. Some officers will prefer that you hand your permit to them along with your driver's license and registration.
DeusExMachina
02-28-2011, 10:30
Since I got my permit, I have made it a point to let the officer know "As a courtesy, I should let you know that I have a concealed carry permit. (pause), and I am currently armed. (Or not armed, as applicable.) How would you like for me to proceed?"
The pause allows for it to sink in before you tell the officer that you are armed. I was given this procedure by a Denver cop, who said that he prefers this. Other things you can do at initial contact: Take the keys out of the ignition and place them on the dash, keep both hands in plain view as the officer approaches, and turn on the dome light. Some officers will prefer that you hand your permit to them along with your driver's license and registration.
I always do the second portion, even before I have my permit.
I feel like telling them is unnecessary, as handing over your permit will accomplish the same thing and they can then ask or not ask. Volunteering the information can be misconstrued as all sorts of things. I think the transaction of:
Me: *hands over permit*
Officer: *looks at permit, looks at me* Are you carrying?
Me: Yes.
And then whatever the officer wishes to do from there. It seems to be smoother than coughing up some verbose form of "I have a gun". Maybe I'm just influenced by Mr. Ayoob.
KevDen2005
02-28-2011, 10:31
I do prefer to get handed the permit, it makes it easier. I usually follow up with, "Are you carrying right now?" If you say, "Sir, to let you know I am armed..." then complete your sentence before getting your wallet the officer isn't going to freak, unless you were driving that gang-banging car that was just involved in the drive-by (you get what I am saying here).
If you yell, "I have a gun" this may change things. You guys aren't dumb, just be polite and have tact (that thing we don't have with our in-laws).
My routine won't change much because I often ask, "Is there anything in your vehicle I should know about?" If the law changes and you say "No" then i won't know the difference, but here is the tricky part...If you don't tell me you have a gun, and I see it as you are grabbing for your wallet, you will probably see my gun. If you say, "I have a gun on my hip (or wherever it may be) and I wanted to let you know before I get my wallet" then I will probably put my hand on my gun and break all the retention on the holster (don't be alarmed if an officer does this) and I will certainly watch every move you make (which I should be doing anyway for safety).
And to answer the first question, yes if you don't tell me you have a CCW it will show up (or should depending on what redneck county you live in and how fast they put them into the system) on the computer, which is called NCIC/CCIC.
However, I have never had this issue, every CCW holder I have stopped has told me or showed me their CCW, whether they were carrying or not, which I always want to reiterate how much I appreciate when CCW holders do this.
Does this answer your question?
DeusExMachina
02-28-2011, 10:40
Yes, thank you so much.
I didn't think about going for your wallet and exposing the gun, but if going for your wallet will expose you carrying, you're not carrying concealed very well.
KevDen2005
02-28-2011, 10:44
Definitely agreed. Keep in mind there is also no law requiring you to have a permit within your vehicle...however it goes back to my previous statement...if you are forward about it the officer will be appreciative and more relaxed, if he is surprised about the gun the officer will probably react to the complete opposite.
Also keep in mind telling the officer you have it is good in the event the officer needs you to get out of the car for any reason...letting him/her know that you have it or have it in your car prior to you getting out will also put the officer in a better mood.
On the topic of if/how to tell an officer you are carrying. Does current CO state law require one to tell an officer when contacted?
I was pulled over in Indiana while carrying. I informed the officer I was carrying and handed him my CO permit. When he returned from his cruiser he told me that I wasn't allowed to carry in Indiana (not true) but that he wasn't going to arrest me (wish he would have I could have made some money). Anyways it got me thinking that in that case the less he knew the better off the situation would have been.
So if citizens are going to be allowed to carry without a permit (and thus the officer won't know when looking them up in the computer) perhaps not saying anything would make sense, of course if the law allows that.
I need to know if the shall issue in the law that currently exists is going to remain in place. I haven't heard anything addressing if we no longer need a CCW how can we conceal carry in the other approximately 30 states that recognize Colorado's CCW. I just don't want this to become a backdoor attempt to prevent me as a Colorado resident from carrying concealed in other states as I travel that don't adopt a similar law and if Colorado permits are no longer issued. We all know there are counties in Colorado that would stop issuing permits if they are not required to. I would hope we are keeping a permit process at least until national concealed carry prevails. haha!
Also I know that my wife or daughter will want a gun to carry if they don't need a permit. Each have shot a gun just enough to make them believe they can do it. But I don't think either are very comfortable shooting one and I don't want them arming the bad guy with their gun in an attack. I would prefer that they just keep their pepper spray. The permit process keeps them from carrying since they don't believe they have the time for that "extra training and classes" needed to get a permit. Without the permit process I become the mean selfish butthead that is just afraid they "might loose" one of my guns. I doubt I'm the only guy that would be in a similar situation with a wife, girlfriend or daughter.
Definitely agreed. Keep in mind there is also no law requiring you to have a permit within your vehicle...however it goes back to my previous statement...if you are forward about it the officer will be appreciative and more relaxed, if he is surprised about the gun the officer will probably react to the complete opposite.
Also keep in mind telling the officer you have it is good in the event the officer needs you to get out of the car for any reason...letting him/her know that you have it or have it in your car prior to you getting out will also put the officer in a better mood.
Why would this be an issue?
Stepping out of my car does not authorize a LEO to go into my vehicle without permission. I thinks that it's that pesky 4th amendment that many citizens do not understand.
newracer
02-28-2011, 17:10
I need to know if the shall issue in the law that currently exists is going to remain in place. I haven't heard anything addressing if we no longer need a CCW how can we conceal carry in the other approximately 30 states that recognize Colorado's CCW. I just don't want this to become a backdoor attempt to prevent me as a Colorado resident from carrying concealed in other states as I travel that don't adopt a similar law and if Colorado permits are no longer issued. We all know there are counties in Colorado that would stop issuing permits if they are not required to. I would hope we are keeping a permit process at least until national concealed carry prevails. haha!
Also I know that my wife or daughter will want a gun to carry if they don't need a permit. Each have shot a gun just enough to make them believe they can do it. But I don't think either are very comfortable shooting one and I don't want them arming the bad guy with their gun in an attack. I would prefer that they just keep their pepper spray. The permit process keeps them from carrying since they don't believe they have the time for that "extra training and classes" needed to get a permit. Without the permit process I become the mean selfish butthead that is just afraid they "might loose" one of my guns. I doubt I'm the only guy that would be in a similar situation with a wife, girlfriend or daughter.
It does not change anything about obtaining a permit, you will still be able to get one if you desire.
KevDen2005
02-28-2011, 18:01
Why would this be an issue?
Stepping out of my car does not authorize a LEO to go into my vehicle without permission. I thinks that it's that pesky 4th amendment that many citizens do not understand.
Well you are wrong here, there are actually several ways an officer can get into your car with your lack of permission.
My point is just so the officer doesn't become jumpy and put a gun barrel in your face when he sees a gun on your hip
DeusExMachina
02-28-2011, 18:04
Well you are wrong here, there are actually several ways an officer can get into your car with your lack of permission.
My point is just so the officer doesn't become jumpy and put a gun barrel in your face when he sees a gun on your hip
I'm not being inflammatory, but what if they're open carrying in a place where its legal to do so?
KevDen2005
02-28-2011, 18:06
On the topic of if/how to tell an officer you are carrying. Does current CO state law require one to tell an officer when contacted?
I was pulled over in Indiana while carrying. I informed the officer I was carrying and handed him my CO permit. When he returned from his cruiser he told me that I wasn't allowed to carry in Indiana (not true) but that he wasn't going to arrest me (wish he would have I could have made some money). Anyways it got me thinking that in that case the less he knew the better off the situation would have been.
So if citizens are going to be allowed to carry without a permit (and thus the officer won't know when looking them up in the computer) perhaps not saying anything would make sense, of course if the law allows that.
Current law does not require it, however my whole point was telling the officer may make him happier, may make the situation for everyone safer, and may get you out of a ticket as well. In Colorado if you are concealing and have a conceal carry permit and aren't in any of the places that tell you can't be by law, you have no worries.
As for other states I would tell you have to make up your own mind, I don't know their laws. As an LEO I can carry pretty much anywhere. I do see that Indiana currently allows reciprocity, but I think this used to be different. I am not exactly sure though
KevDen2005
02-28-2011, 18:10
I'm not being inflammatory, but what if they're open carrying in a place where its legal to do so?
I would just say know the law, verbatim, including the statute number. Know what Denver's restrictions are on that because they are different from the rest of the state's. And expect to be contacted. Even if the police don't feel the need to contact you, realize that the mass public will call the police and say something to them about your gun. If the police are called about a guy with a gun they have an OBLIGATION to investigate it to make sure the citizen that called 911 is safe.
I open carry in the mountains all the time but I choose never to do this in a city. I never want to draw attention to myself because who knows who is watching you at this point (i.e. the bad guys). I stole this line from a guy on here..."Keep in secret, keep it safe." These are my personal feelings though.
I know Utah has mandatory notification (which is where I got the verbiage). Laws vary from state to state, so it pays to know them if you're traveling. Good, up to date info can be found at www.usacarry.com or www.handgunlaw.us
KevDen2005
02-28-2011, 18:21
I know Utah has mandatory notification (which is where I got the verbiage). Laws vary from state to state, so it pays to know them if you're traveling. Good, up to date info can be found at www.usacarry.com (http://www.usacarry.com) or www.handgunlaw.us (http://www.handgunlaw.us)
Indeed. This is part of the reason why I wish the US would adopt CCW that acts like DL, so you can drive through a state and not have a whole new set of stupid rules from state to state and you are trying to do the right thing and you end up getting screwed. Just like traffic law there are minor differences from state to state (I am not suggesting that CCW is compared to traffic law). This is the 21st century. The majority (if not all) the CCW holders are not going around shooting people (that didn't need to be shot). We should be able to figure something out
While I support this bill, I am kinda pissed off because I just paid 152.50 for mine not 5 months ago :P. I think it would get a lot more people to carry a gun, but to be honest the fee for a permit really is not that much. Its 4 hours pay of work for me...and considering its due every 5 years thats really chump change.
Honestly, It will probably just get vetoed anyway. Remember Hickenlooper was part of Mayors against illegal guns? I think thats what it was called. Anyway, heres to hoping. :beer:
I stole this line from a guy on here..."Keep in secret, keep it safe." These are my personal feelings though.
You stole it from Gandalf!
KevDen2005
02-28-2011, 19:36
You stole it from Gandalf!
Cool, thanks. I hate using people's material with proper credit, but that is a great line. I had to keep using it and couldn't remember which thread or person I took it from.
[Beer]
KevDen2005
02-28-2011, 19:39
While I support this bill, I am kinda pissed off because I just paid 152.50 for mine not 5 months ago :P. I think it would get a lot more people to carry a gun, but to be honest the fee for a permit really is not that much. Its 4 hours pay of work for me...and considering its due every 5 years thats really chump change.
Honestly, It will probably just get vetoed anyway. Remember Hickenlooper was part of Mayors against illegal guns? I think thats what it was called. Anyway, heres to hoping. :beer:
I don't really mind this portion, what I dislike is how the Sheriff's offices run it and how your permit can be revoked almost whenever a Sheriff deems necessary. As a cop I do believe that there are those necessary times that can definitely be articulated, however I have also seen some things that I would say still are okay and still fly but I don't agree with.
I don't really mind this portion, what I dislike is how the Sheriff's offices run it and how your permit can be revoked almost whenever a Sheriff deems necessary. As a cop I do believe that there are those necessary times that can definitely be articulated, however I have also seen some things that I would say still are okay and still fly but I don't agree with.
I've got no problem with the way it is now, but yeah I know sheriffs departments can just revoke it whenever they please...but are there documented cases of them doing this? Just curious is all. I know it is written down that they can take it if they deem you unfit or whatever it says in the fine print when you sign the agreement, just wondering if they actually have taken it away for no reason, other than to just revoke it. I've heard of people getting it revoked for domestic violence cases and various other crimes, but never just for the hell of it.
KevDen2005
02-28-2011, 21:20
I've got no problem with the way it is now, but yeah I know sheriffs departments can just revoke it whenever they please...but are there documented cases of them doing this? Just curious is all. I know it is written down that they can take it if they deem you unfit or whatever it says in the fine print when you sign the agreement, just wondering if they actually have taken it away for no reason, other than to just revoke it. I've heard of people getting it revoked for domestic violence cases and various other crimes, but never just for the hell of it.
There aren't documented cases that I know of, just my experience with people, ccw, and the Sheriff's officer (I may be a little jaded working for a municipality...lol) that it seems too easy for them to revoke it....it my opinion it would "just because" probably not a court's opinion.
There aren't documented cases that I know of, just my experience with people, ccw, and the Sheriff's officer (I may be a little jaded working for a municipality...lol) that it seems too easy for them to revoke it....it my opinion it would "just because" probably not a court's opinion.
it seems easy, but I don't think they ever will without a cause. I mean you can look at RMGO and see how many permits are revoked annually, and its a pretty big number, but im sure they all had their reasons.
one thing i am concerned about this is all those people who don't understand gun safety and carrying guns around (think of any time you've been to a gun show and there is always someone who is flashing the barrel of a gun in front of people, regardless of if its unloaded you just don't do that) . That is my only concern, not that they will hurt other people but potentially hurt themselves.
wasn't it on here that someone posted a statistic saying a gun owner is more likely to hurt himself with his gun then another human being?...just something to think about. not that this should be thrown out all together, in fact I support it. but yeah.
ghettodub
03-02-2011, 09:37
Figures, after I change my mind about this bill, I finally get a response from a senator I emailed, heh.
Dear Mr. Young,
Thank you for your email and for taking the time to contact the office of State Senator Mark Scheffel; we appreciate your input.
HB11-1205 passed its second reading today on the house floor. Senator Scheffel will give this bill careful consideration as it progresses in the legislative process.
Thank you for your engagement of this issue and of the legislative process.
Sincerely,
Caleb Crossland
Legislative Aide to State Senator Mark Scheffel
DeusExMachina
03-02-2011, 10:14
http://www.denverpost.com/legislature/ci_17515948
Moving on to final vote in the House...
Figures, after I change my mind about this bill, I finally get a response from a senator I emailed, heh.
Which way did you change?
DeusExMachina
03-02-2011, 10:18
Democrats are funny.
"We will not be promoting public safety if our police chiefs, who are very strongly opposed to this bill, do not have any way of knowing who is armed and who is not (during traffic stops)," argued Rep. Claire Levy, D-Boulder. "I do not want to have to worry when my children go down to the park to play that there are people there who have concealed weapons."
Rep. Deb Gardner, D-Boulder, said it was inevitable that a police officer in Colorado would be killed if the bill becomes law.
ghettodub
03-02-2011, 10:19
Which way did you change?
I don't support it anymore; posted about it a few days ago
ghettodub
03-02-2011, 10:19
Democrats are funny.
I read that. fricken morons
I don't support it anymore; posted about it a few days ago
Which thread? I want to read it.
ghettodub
03-02-2011, 10:23
Which thread? I want to read it.
Here ya go
http://www.co-ar15.com/forums/showpost.php?p=313085&postcount=59
thank you much. I miss a lot of posts these days.
Getto, I think your argument has some merit. However, maybe an addition to the bill could be an education requirement.
ghettodub
03-02-2011, 10:55
Getto, I think your argument has some merit. However, maybe an addition to the bill could be an education requirement.
I would feel a lot better about it if that was the case.
FireMoth
03-02-2011, 11:29
Sorry Dub, but I am STRONGLY opposed to your position.
Open carry is already legal throughout the state with a few exception without permitting or education requirement.
Some how, that has not turned this into the wild west.
More over, plenty of people carry illegally anyway. laws, as we know, are for the law abiding.
But i think its most important to recognize what the education requirements have accomplished for the CCW laws as they exist.
We have people who are serious about educating and training themselves getting good information and skill sets, because that's what they would do anyway. We have many more simply going through the process because that is what is required of them. Regardless of the quality of the education beign offered them, they arent absorbing it, because they don't care.
Compounding this is the bad training and misinformation beign offered by oppertunistic people who recognized that attitude as a business opportunity.
Which makes it exactly like the treatment a far more dangerous weapon system has been given for many years.
Most of the people on the road passed the same driving test as the rest of us, but that didn't suddenly make them competent and capable drivers any more than takign trig in high school made them mathematicians.
Yet we don't sit here frightened to go out on the roads or cross streets because of it.
So we come again to what power legislation actually has for enforcement: None at all. If it had enforcement power, we wouldn't be having these discussions , because drugs and murder, and assault, etc. are all illegal.
So i think demanding a training process invites the same sort of bureaucratic bullshit that regulating firearms by 'type' does.
Some one has to make the determination about what training is valid or not, based on whose doctrine got the political clout to be presented. It becomes doctrine, and so does not evolve, despite the fact that conflict is not a static or constant thing. And like the laws regulation firearms and features by type, there will be odd exceptions by the letter of the law simply because of wording, and much that doesn't make sense.
All so you can feel more comfortable with people having a PERCEIVED greater access to arms.
Imagine if this law was presented and passed back when guys like Thell Reed defined action shooting. Then it becomes law that you'd train the way they shoot... but things have changed since then, haven't they?
Something to consider is that if someone illegally conceals under the current laws, you're not going to know about it unless the break a law to be discovered.
If they break a law with the gun, shouldn't THAT be our concern? Not the means, or the pre amble, but the crime?
Then, there is the effect of the current CCW laws. The social implication is that those with free time and disposable income have a greater value to their lives than those who don't. Argue it all you want, but the fact is a society segment that's largely middle class males are NOT the people who most need tools for self defense.
The single Young mother who works herself ragged supporting a kid and going to school, coming and going early and late without escort needs a gun more than i do. But she cant afford the time and money to get a ccw.
And if we already trust people to have guns, what is this training requirement supposed to do about them having a coat over it? does that require greater trust than having a gun in the first place?
And maybe that single mom can afford a CCW and the time to get it... or she can afford ammo and some semi regular practice... but not both. which would you prefer she had? I don't think the current requirements make people feel compelled to continue training, and many don't. So what does it accomplish?
And of course i am posting this on CO-AR15... a rifle user forum. You'd think we of all people would see it as silly to worry about piss ant hand guns as avowed users of a far more violent weapon system that is available to 18 year olds across this country. We don't fight wars with hand guns. Why are we so fussy about them?
I'll tell you why; Fear of the unknown. It can be hidden... but so can lots of things, and life is a gamble. is that driver next to you drunk? or paying attention? who knows. Security cant be promised to anyone, no matter how long it took you to get over being afraid of the dark.
We had a gun law when this country was founded. One, that by its wording should have precluded the writing of any other.
Show me where any of these laws written since then in defiance of that law have improved things, and i'll jump on your training band wagon. untill that is demonstrated... "...Shall NOT be infringed..."
hurley842002
03-02-2011, 11:38
The single Young mother who works herself ragged supporting a kid and going to school, coming and going early and late without escort needs a gun more than i do. But she cant afford the time and money to get a ccw.
Good post brother, and AMEN to the above! If this is the ONLY reason (which its not), to pass a constitutional carry, it's good enough for me.
http://playstationlifestyle.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/25ad8-slow_clap.gif
DeusExMachina
03-02-2011, 11:58
I like this sudden rash of Rob posting. :)
Just read it...you need to do a little editing and send that along to every CO senator...seriously.
newracer
03-02-2011, 12:06
Very well said.
hurley842002
03-02-2011, 12:12
I like this sudden rash of Rob posting. :)
Just read it...you need to do a little editing and send that along to every CO senator...seriously.
For sure [Beer]
ghettodub
03-02-2011, 12:23
Sorry Dub, but I am STRONGLY opposed to your position.
No need to say sorry at all, I that was all well said and you have good points.
However, it still doesn't change my stance on this. The only thing I think that's wrong with the current CCW process is the additional background check fee. I think that carrying concealed isn't for everyone, because it takes a lot more responsibility than just owning a gun. Just my .02 though
But very well put on your end. [Beer]
You're right, it's not for every body. Just like open carry, just because it is legal, doesn't mean that people will rush out and do it.
Very well said FireMoth!
I'm tired of the attitude that we must legislate to the lowest common denominator. So because there are morons out there that will be irresponsible with a constitutional carry act, the rest of us have to suffer and pay to exercise our rights?
Again it comes down to the fact that law breaking criminals will carry their guns regardless of any laws, so laws restricting our rights only put us at a disadvantage.
I'm tired of the attitude that we must legislate to the lowest common denominator. ....
Me too. It's a fact of life now... school testing, workplace evals, etc.
Sorry Dub, but I am STRONGLY opposed to your position...
...We had a gun law when this country was founded. One, that by its wording should have precluded the writing of any other.
Show me where any of these laws written since then in defiance of that law have improved things, and i'll jump on your training band wagon. untill that is demonstrated... "...Shall NOT be infringed..."
I left most of your post out for length but if I could I'd have the whole damn thing as my signature on every gun forum I belong to!
We had a gun law when this country was founded. One, that by its wording should have precluded the writing of any other.
what is so hard for people to understand about this?
be sure to follow up with your senate person...
So anyone think the only mayor (now CO .gov) that was a member of Bloomberg's gun hater club is going to sign this into law?
I say he's going to put a big fat VETO across this bill because he's so concerned with doing it for the children.
M2MG
FireMoth
03-03-2011, 12:57
I think almost everyone fore sees that outcome. Which is why a strong 2/3rd majority in the house was an important thing. It's almost certain that there will have to be enough votes to overturn a veto.
newracer
03-03-2011, 13:10
It has to get past the Senate first, not likely.
Byte Stryke
03-03-2011, 16:23
SenLoisTochtrop@aol.com
to Byte Stryke
I appreciate your feedback. A majority of responders to HB 1205 (no permit required for concealed carry) oppose this legislation.
Lois
Senator Lois Tochtrop
State Capitol Building
Denver, CO 80203
303-866-4863
So it would seem that the minority is making more noise.
Please send emails.
Get Relatives to send Emails
Get friends to send Emails
Squeaky wheel gets the grease.
newracer
03-03-2011, 18:21
Obviously intouch with society today, still has an AOL account.
FromMyColdDeadHand
03-03-2011, 23:39
If we have no regulations for CCW and no permitting, doesn't that mean that we will loose our reciprocity with states that will see this as less than their standard?
I want CCW SBRs before letting people to busy to sit thru a four hour class carry.
DeusExMachina
03-03-2011, 23:55
If we have no regulations for CCW and no permitting, doesn't that mean that we will loose our reciprocity with states that will see this as less than their standard?
I want CCW SBRs before letting people to busy to sit thru a four hour class carry.
Why would we lose reciprocity? You still have to apply for permits, which requires training. The permit system wouldn't change. It would only affect residents while in Colorado.
Please read FireMoth's post in this thread. "Before letting people to busy to sit thru a four hour class carry" is probably the dumbest thing I've read on this subject.
FromMyColdDeadHand
03-04-2011, 10:51
Why would we lose reciprocity? You still have to apply for permits, which requires training. The permit system wouldn't change. It would only affect residents while in Colorado.
Please read FireMoth's post in this thread. "Before letting people to busy to sit thru a four hour class carry" is probably the dumbest thing I've read on this subject.
My bad, it seems from reports that the law would get rid of the permitting process. With out a permit, you don't get much reciprocity. Try putting in Vermont into a reciprocity map and see how limited your options are. As long as we still have a permit process so that I have some kind of reciprocity when I travel I don't have a problem with the law.
As to training, if you can read all the statues that pertain to CCW and the use of force and understand all the nuances and case law- more power to you. I think it is less than one in a hundered lay people that could correctly interpret the laws. If people want to CCW with out getting some knowledge, I hope they end up only hurting themselves either physically or legally. From the complete and utter stupidity I heard in my CCW class and see every time I go to a gun store, I really wish people get more training.
If people think the ability to tuck a Hi-point in their belt under their shirt is all it takes to be effective in defending yourself and keeping yourself out of 'pound you in the ass jail', that is the silliest thing I've read.
Maybe if they pass the law they can add to the High School curriculum instruction on proper CCW and its issues. Why not, we already have all kinds of MADD, sex, and diversity training. Why not some basic firearms handling training.
tonantius
03-04-2011, 10:59
Which committee is handling this in the State Senate?
DeusExMachina
03-04-2011, 11:09
My bad, it seems from reports that the law would get rid of the permitting process. With out a permit, you don't get much reciprocity. Try putting in Vermont into a reciprocity map and see how limited your options are. As long as we still have a permit process so that I have some kind of reciprocity when I travel I don't have a problem with the law.
As to training, if you can read all the statues that pertain to CCW and the use of force and understand all the nuances and case law- more power to you. I think it is less than one in a hundered lay people that could correctly interpret the laws. If people want to CCW with out getting some knowledge, I hope they end up only hurting themselves either physically or legally. From the complete and utter stupidity I heard in my CCW class and see every time I go to a gun store, I really wish people get more training.
If people think the ability to tuck a Hi-point in their belt under their shirt is all it takes to be effective in defending yourself and keeping yourself out of 'pound you in the ass jail', that is the silliest thing I've read.
Maybe if they pass the law they can add to the High School curriculum instruction on proper CCW and its issues. Why not, we already have all kinds of MADD, sex, and diversity training. Why not some basic firearms handling training.
Actually all the articles I've read specifically state that the permit system will remain in place for specifically the reason of reciprocity.
I wish people got more training, too. And some do. Most don't. Guess who continue to carry after the novelty wears off?
Again, I would happily deal with the possibility of coming into contact with some idiot that is carrying (which, as all indicators show from other states, is very minimal) to restore people's rights.
FireMoth
03-04-2011, 11:09
To be clear, they are NOT getting rid of the permitting process.
They are simply making it optional.
So, if you want reciprocity, you can still go through the existing process, and get a permit card.
This would just make that card unnecessary for law abiding residents within the state of Colorado.
So, don't tear up your CCW permit. It still has value.
Later, perhaps that process will be refined, but this doesn't invalidate the existing law. Permits will still be needed for reciprocity, and still be available.
Sorry Dub, but I am STRONGLY opposed to your position.
Open carry is already legal throughout the state with a few exception without permitting or education requirement.
Some how, that has not turned this into the wild west.
More over, plenty of people carry illegally anyway. laws, as we know, are for the law abiding.
But i think its most important to recognize what the education requirements have accomplished for the CCW laws as they exist.
We have people who are serious about educating and training themselves getting good information and skill sets, because that's what they would do anyway. We have many more simply going through the process because that is what is required of them. Regardless of the quality of the education beign offered them, they arent absorbing it, because they don't care.
Compounding this is the bad training and misinformation beign offered by oppertunistic people who recognized that attitude as a business opportunity.
Which makes it exactly like the treatment a far more dangerous weapon system has been given for many years.
Most of the people on the road passed the same driving test as the rest of us, but that didn't suddenly make them competent and capable drivers any more than takign trig in high school made them mathematicians.
Yet we don't sit here frightened to go out on the roads or cross streets because of it.
So we come again to what power legislation actually has for enforcement: None at all. If it had enforcement power, we wouldn't be having these discussions , because drugs and murder, and assault, etc. are all illegal.
So i think demanding a training process invites the same sort of bureaucratic bullshit that regulating firearms by 'type' does.
Some one has to make the determination about what training is valid or not, based on whose doctrine got the political clout to be presented. It becomes doctrine, and so does not evolve, despite the fact that conflict is not a static or constant thing. And like the laws regulation firearms and features by type, there will be odd exceptions by the letter of the law simply because of wording, and much that doesn't make sense.
All so you can feel more comfortable with people having a PERCEIVED greater access to arms.
Imagine if this law was presented and passed back when guys like Thell Reed defined action shooting. Then it becomes law that you'd train the way they shoot... but things have changed since then, haven't they?
Something to consider is that if someone illegally conceals under the current laws, you're not going to know about it unless the break a law to be discovered.
If they break a law with the gun, shouldn't THAT be our concern? Not the means, or the pre amble, but the crime?
Then, there is the effect of the current CCW laws. The social implication is that those with free time and disposable income have a greater value to their lives than those who don't. Argue it all you want, but the fact is a society segment that's largely middle class males are NOT the people who most need tools for self defense.
The single Young mother who works herself ragged supporting a kid and going to school, coming and going early and late without escort needs a gun more than i do. But she cant afford the time and money to get a ccw.
And if we already trust people to have guns, what is this training requirement supposed to do about them having a coat over it? does that require greater trust than having a gun in the first place?
And maybe that single mom can afford a CCW and the time to get it... or she can afford ammo and some semi regular practice... but not both. which would you prefer she had? I don't think the current requirements make people feel compelled to continue training, and many don't. So what does it accomplish?
And of course i am posting this on CO-AR15... a rifle user forum. You'd think we of all people would see it as silly to worry about piss ant hand guns as avowed users of a far more violent weapon system that is available to 18 year olds across this country. We don't fight wars with hand guns. Why are we so fussy about them?
I'll tell you why; Fear of the unknown. It can be hidden... but so can lots of things, and life is a gamble. is that driver next to you drunk? or paying attention? who knows. Security cant be promised to anyone, no matter how long it took you to get over being afraid of the dark.
We had a gun law when this country was founded. One, that by its wording should have precluded the writing of any other.
Show me where any of these laws written since then in defiance of that law have improved things, and i'll jump on your training band wagon. untill that is demonstrated... "...Shall NOT be infringed..."
Best of the thread!
But I think Irvings post conveys it best.
[Beer]
Buzzkill69
03-05-2011, 21:16
what is so hard for people to understand about this?
be sure to follow up with your senate person...
Very interesting point! Does anyone know at what point it became illegal to carry a concealed firearm?
Gcompact30
03-05-2011, 21:29
The criminals will carry anyway without a CCW.... So the law abiding citizens are the only ones hurt in this shit... You would think if you carry a gun period you would NO how to use the dam thing. So if the Gov VETO the bill, it will not stop the criminals from carrying a gun. Who are we to say law abiding citizens should not carry or a CCW is not for everyone. It's the right remember, the 2nd Amendment. You carry a firearm you dam well better no how to handle it or your ass will be in prison anyway when you shoot the wrong person or in jail you menace someone with it. So who ever carry a firearm better know the laws.. just my 2 cents. [Rant1][Rant1][Rant1][Rant1]
monganian
03-06-2011, 12:29
This is a good place to vent, but I think that we're preaching to the choir on this issue. But since I'm venting, my opinion is that the focus should be on limiting criminals/bad guys from acquiring firearms. How is that done without limiting good guys from acquiring those same firearms?
I feel that as a "good guy," I should be entitled to carry my weapons in whatever fashion I see fit. I should be allowed to protect myself. If I were to misuse that right to own and carry, well then take away that right from ME.
Gcompact30
03-06-2011, 12:55
AMEN BROTHER, your so right.
This is a good place to vent, but I think that we're preaching to the choir on this issue. But since I'm venting, my opinion is that the focus should be on limiting criminals/bad guys from acquiring firearms. How is that done without limiting good guys from acquiring those same firearms?
I feel that as a "good guy," I should be entitled to carry my weapons in whatever fashion I see fit. I should be allowed to protect myself. If I were to misuse that right to own and carry, well then take away that right from ME.
streetglideok
03-06-2011, 14:00
The best way to control criminals getting guns, is a double tap to the chest![M2]
Very interesting point! Does anyone know at what point it became illegal to carry a concealed firearm?
When Colorado became a state. ;)
Colorado State Constitution:
Section 13. Right to bear arms.
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 in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons.
Lex_Luthor
03-10-2011, 12:56
Here's an email update I got:
From the Office of Representative Su Ryden,
Thank you for your messages concerning HB-1205 concerning the authority of a law abiding person to carry a concealed handgun without a permit. The bill was highly contested both in the Judiciary Committee and the floor. The bill was amended on the floor to include that there is a 21 year old age limit to legally possess and own a gun. The bill is now currently in the senate and assigned to State Military and Veterans affairs Committee. I hope that this update helps and thank you for taking the time to let us know about your concerns with this bill.
newracer
03-10-2011, 13:21
As long as the 21 year old age limit has the same exclusion already in effect I am OK with it.
ghettodub
03-10-2011, 13:43
Here's an email update I got:
Just got that email too. Good stuff
DeusExMachina
03-10-2011, 14:53
I'm pretty sure the bill was amended to include that you cannot purchase and carry a handgun if you are under 21, which is already a law.
patrick0685
03-10-2011, 15:06
What?
HELL NO!
my first thoughts as well, but then i thought they must be saying HANDgun and not all guns
DeusExMachina
03-10-2011, 15:12
"To include that there is" says to me that "this is already in place, so we are including it in the bill". I would think "to include a" would have meant it is new.
Not sure though...I think the email is just worded poorly.
It makes sense though. I believe you need to be 21 to get a CCW permit, so needing to be 21 to constitutional carry makes sense.
newracer
03-10-2011, 15:32
It depends on how it is actually worded. If it states that under 21 cannot posses or own a handgun then I am against it. If it states that if under 21 you cannot CC than I am OK with it but I think it should be 18 not 21.
newracer
03-10-2011, 15:33
I'm pretty sure the bill was amended to include that you cannot purchase and carry a handgun if you are under 21, which is already a law.
Not true, you can purchase a handgun at 18, just not from an FFL, private sale is fine and gift is fine. Also you can open carry at 18.
DeusExMachina
03-10-2011, 15:55
Not true, you can purchase a handgun at 18, just not from an FFL, private sale is fine and gift is fine. Also you can open carry at 18.
I meant from an FFL and I meant concealed.
Bitter Clinger
03-11-2011, 08:59
"To include that there is" says to me that "this is already in place, so we are including it in the bill". I would think "to include a" would have meant it is new.
Not sure though...I think the email is just worded poorly.
It makes sense though. I believe you need to be 21 to get a CCW permit, so needing to be 21 to constitutional carry makes sense.
So a 20 year old kids right to protect himself is not as important as a 21 year olds? Not trying to start a fight but I disagree with this on many different levels. A 20 year old can fight and die for America, A 20 year old can buy a home, a car, and raise children of his own(my father was 20 when I was born).
And I am not trying to single you out Deus, right now the current CCW law is for those 21 and over only, so it wont change anything really. I have just never understood the mentality of the whole 21 and firearms thing. If the law considers you an adult at 18 then you should treated as an adult. Hell I even think 3.2 bars should be allowed.
ghettodub
03-11-2011, 09:07
While I don't entirely disagree with you, that's a whole different argument. I think if you can go fight overseas for our country, you should be able to drink a beer, buy a handgun, etc.
FireMoth
03-11-2011, 09:46
Yeah, i would like to see an initiative to allow or soldiery to be armed while on military reservations. Of all the people to forbid arms to....
DeusExMachina
03-11-2011, 09:51
So a 20 year old kids right to protect himself is not as important as a 21 year olds? Not trying to start a fight but I disagree with this on many different levels. A 20 year old can fight and die for America, A 20 year old can buy a home, a car, and raise children of his own(my father was 20 when I was born).
And I am not trying to single you out Deus, right now the current CCW law is for those 21 and over only, so it wont change anything really. I have just never understood the mentality of the whole 21 and firearms thing. If the law considers you an adult at 18 then you should treated as an adult. Hell I even think 3.2 bars should be allowed.
Do not put words in my mouth. I never said anything like that. That is just how it is. I do not think its right nor do I think the drinking age is right.
FireMoth
03-11-2011, 10:03
Before we get at each other throats, i think we can recognize that with the exception of the second amendment, guns laws in this country are by and large ridiculous.
Acknowledging that, the bills authors conceded to rules already established by the existing CCW law, so that this measure has a chance of passing.
So, they added wording that indicates that the 21 years of age restriction woudl not be changed by this bill.
the bill from its inception, sought to leave the existing CCW law in place, and simply open its availability.
Allowing concealed carry for minors, just as it may be, inadvertently challenges the federal restriction that requires hand gun purchasers to be 21. It isn't a big logical leap to say that forbidding some one to buy a hand gun but allowing them to conceal one doesn't make sense.
Again, i disagree with that restriction, as well as every other gun law since the second amendment, but i appreciate the utility of accepting these limitations so that one change can be made at a time.
The alternative being that the bill would not have a chance, i think its an acceptable compromise.
Getting some of our liberty back will hopefully set the stage to get more.
ghettodub
03-11-2011, 10:07
Before we get at each other throats, i think we can recognize that with the exception of the second amendment, guns laws in this country are by and large ridiculous.
Acknowledging that, the bills authors conceded to rules already established by the existing CCW law, so that this measure has a chance of passing.
So, they added wording that indicates that the 21 years of age restriction woudl not be changed by this bill.
the bill from its inception, sought to leave the existing CCW law in place, and simply open its availability.
Allowing concealed carry for minors, just as it may be, inadvertently challenges the federal restriction that requires hand gun purchasers to be 21. It isn't a big logical leap to say that forbidding some one to buy a hand gun but allowing them to conceal one doesn't make sense.
Again, i disagree with that restriction, as well as every other gun law since the second amendment, but i appreciate the utility of accepting these limitations so that one change can be made at a time.
The alternative being that the bill would not have a chance, i think its an acceptable compromise.
Getting some of our liberty back will hopefully set the stage to get more.
Agreed [Beer]
Before we get at each other throats, i think we can recognize that with the exception of the second amendment, guns laws in this country are by and large ridiculous.
Acknowledging that, the bills authors conceded to rules already established by the existing CCW law, so that this measure has a chance of passing.
So, they added wording that indicates that the 21 years of age restriction woudl not be changed by this bill.
the bill from its inception, sought to leave the existing CCW law in place, and simply open its availability.
Allowing concealed carry for minors, just as it may be, inadvertently challenges the federal restriction that requires hand gun purchasers to be 21. It isn't a big logical leap to say that forbidding some one to buy a hand gun but allowing them to conceal one doesn't make sense.
Again, i disagree with that restriction, as well as every other gun law since the second amendment, but i appreciate the utility of accepting these limitations so that one change can be made at a time.
The alternative being that the bill would not have a chance, i think its an acceptable compromise.
Getting some of our liberty back will hopefully set the stage to get more.
Once again well put!
[Beer]
newracer
03-11-2011, 19:19
Before we get at each other throats, i think we can recognize that with the exception of the second amendment, guns laws in this country are by and large ridiculous.
Acknowledging that, the bills authors conceded to rules already established by the existing CCW law, so that this measure has a chance of passing.
So, they added wording that indicates that the 21 years of age restriction woudl not be changed by this bill.
the bill from its inception, sought to leave the existing CCW law in place, and simply open its availability.
Allowing concealed carry for minors, just as it may be, inadvertently challenges the federal restriction that requires hand gun purchasers to be 21. It isn't a big logical leap to say that forbidding some one to buy a hand gun but allowing them to conceal one doesn't make sense.
Again, i disagree with that restriction, as well as every other gun law since the second amendment, but i appreciate the utility of accepting these limitations so that one change can be made at a time.
The alternative being that the bill would not have a chance, i think its an acceptable compromise.
Getting some of our liberty back will hopefully set the stage to get more.
I disagree, it is not an acceptable compromise. By accepting the age restriction you are trading one freedom for another. Nothing with this bill as originally written would allow for minors to carry, minors are under the age of 18 not 21. Federal law only restricts purchases from FFL holders not private transactions. In addition federal law for ownership is 18 not 21. This bill as originally written would not challenge any federal law.
FireMoth
03-11-2011, 22:13
Again, the bill was written to mirror the existing CCW law in all other ways except what it is expressly set forth to change.
The existing law does not permit those persons under 21 years of age to carry concealed. nor, to my knowledge, does any other CCW law in the U.S.
Though it does not LEGALLY challenge the federal statute, it would intellectually challenge its intent, and there for be a sufficient arguing point to kill the bills momentum.
All a filibuster would need is some one to ask how it is a person under 21 is getting a hold of hand guns if they cannot legally purchase them, and turn it into an argument about what constitutes legal possession versus straw purchase. It wouldn't ultimately produce anything, except to kill the bill on the floor.
So, yes, there is the purist attitude that the second amendment is the only gun law we need. I share that belief, but we didn't lose our liberty all at once. Its not unreasonable to believe it will have to be retrieved as slowly, on piece at a time.
Short of a revolution, we will have to make some compromises.
You've been adhering to more oppressive compromises already. We are getting something BACK here. Would you rather the bill not pass, at all if 18 year olds cant concealed carry? All or nothing? what woudl that gain us?
newracer
03-11-2011, 22:45
My issue is that we do not know what the wording of the bill is in its current form. It is possible that it makes ANY possession of a handgun by someone 18-20 illegal not just concealed carry. If it just makes it illegal for 18-20 to carry concealed I would be OK with it.
Again an 18 year old can legally purchase a handgun, just not from an FFL.
FireMoth
03-12-2011, 09:47
Um, actually we do know what the wording is:
http://www.leg.state.co.us/CLICS/CLICS2011A/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/15608113E583112C8725781E005F3120?Open&file=1205_eng.pdf
And it does not prohibit possession of fire arms by 18 year olds. Its worded very carefully to change only the aspect of CCW that requires the cost and background check.
Being a paranoid rabble rouser without READING doesn't help our cause. There are enough idiots panicking on both sides.
newracer
03-12-2011, 10:32
I had not had a chance to find and read the bill yet and was basing my position on the email sent to many that had the statement.
The bill was amended on the floor to include that there is a 21 year old age limit to legally possess and own a gun.
I now also see that this bill will remove the restriction of carrying at a school. It will never pass and get signed.
Byte Stryke
03-12-2011, 12:58
I now also see that this bill will remove the restriction of carrying at a school. Unfortunately, It will never pass and get signed.
Fixed it for you.
The false premise and security theater antics of the "magical gun free zone" have killed far too many people and its time to fucking stop.
Stop the stupid and delusional from creating defenseless victims.
Stop the make believe wall from killing more children.
Stop the ignorant from corrupting the minds of our youth.
Stop acting all bewildered and appalled when LOTS of people die.
Criminals will not oblige your magical line 50-whatever feet from any school-zone nor will they not shoot someone because they aren't armed. This is actually preferable to the criminal, they are LOOKING for large numbers of defenseless scared and confused disarmed victims, and your stupid fucking policies have given them that.
[Bang]
/rant
monganian
03-12-2011, 21:04
Good rant!
Rob, We had this discussion the other day in your shop and I have to say you have definitely got me thinking. You are 100% correct in your words and I am definitely a proud supporter far more now than I was before. As DeusExMachina said, you need to get that off to the politicians.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.