Bill to make CCW optional in Colorado!

[Buzzkill69]

Just curious what everyone thinks about this. If this bill passed ANYONE would be able to carry concealed.
http://blogs.denverpost.com/thespot/2011/03/01/bill-to-make-concealed-carry-permits-optional-gets-initial-approval/24188/#
I personally don't have a CCW as of yet (YET!) and would benefit from this law passing. However, I don't think this is a good idea. IMO allowing just anyone to run around with a gun in their pants with out any kind of training is asking for trouble. What do the rest of you think?

[Jmetz]

Not to be a buzzkill but you're a little late to the party. :)

http://www.co-ar15.com/forums/showthread.php?t=34304

[eighty duece]

The bad guys do it. The training requirements for most counties here are a freakin joke anyways!!! I would bet half of the people carrying concealed right now dont have permits anyways. IF the law passes and joe bob carries and screws up it will be his ass deep fried so it would behoove anyone carrying to get QUALITY training before they CCW, not most of the local "classes". But the state would get less money from gun owners to finance anti gun crap and help illegals buy houses and eat steak dinners so I dont see a down side to this. I am not dumb enough to believe that it would lower crime, most people dont have enough brain cells to even know when something is going on let alone have the balls to do anything if they had to, but it makes them feel more like a man I guess. I am not bashing CCW, I have my permit, just some people need to man up and quit asking "what if" questions on all the gun forums and spend some time training.

[Gcompact30]

But this has been posted for weeks my brother. [Beer]

[Buzzkill69]

Not to be a buzzkill but you're a little late to the party. :)

http://www.co-ar15.com/forums/showthread.php?t=34304

I figured it probably was on here somewhere, I just didn't see it. Thanks

[Byte Stryke]

he he

[Train]

[AirbornePathogen]

I think it's a double-edged sword. Yes, if this bill passes, it would be a victory for our side. But, there are plenty of guys out there who have no business carrying a firearm. If it passes, I personally see an upswing in charges of Brandishing a Firearm and Felony Menacing being filed. And, as mentioned on the other thread, what about reciprocity? My Colorado permit is valid in over 20 other states, but without a permit, I'm SOL.

[Ranger]

I see both sides of this argument but think a lot of this is simply a technicality. Those who wish to carry likely already are, CCW or not - the primary difference being that the one without a CCW is going to have more legal problems. But if it comes down to pulling the weapon, both parties are equally crucified.

But here is what I don't like about this proposal and that is that it is going to be excellent ammunition against gun owners when the non CCW holder does something stupid. It's bad enough that the CCW licensee gets strung up if anything happens, but I think most of us are considered much less of a risk since we understand that our CCW can be taken from us at any time, whereas Joe Bob (as the earlier poster put it) has nothing to lose from it.

The whole "police are against this because they don't know if someone is carrying", well that is certainly the case now and doesn't change one way or another.

I would rather they spend their time lifting some of the "assault rifle" bans in Colorado. The fact that I cannot have a 15+ round mag in Denver is asinine!

[Elhuero]

I think it's a double-edged sword. Yes, if this bill passes, it would be a victory for our side. But, there are plenty of guys out there who have no business carrying a firearm. If it passes, I personally see an upswing in charges of Brandishing a Firearm and Felony Menacing being filed. And, as mentioned on the other thread, what about reciprocity? My Colorado permit is valid in over 20 other states, but without a permit, I'm SOL.


gun grabber logic.

[Bitter Clinger]

gun grabber logic.

This.

[milwaukeeshaker]

I think you need to read and understand the 2nd amendment to the constitution. There are NO restrictions to our right to keep and BEAR arms. What part of this don't you get? There are a lot of "gun owners" that are quasi anti gunners, and are the real gun owners worst enemies. These people deserve nothing but our utter contempt!

[David121582]

The permit will still be available to those who wish to get it but without it you have zero reciprocity and are illegal if you cross state lines.


I think it's a double-edged sword. Yes, if this bill passes, it would be a victory for our side. But, there are plenty of guys out there who have no business carrying a firearm. If it passes, I personally see an upswing in charges of Brandishing a Firearm and Felony Menacing being filed. And, as mentioned on the other thread, what about reciprocity? My Colorado permit is valid in over 20 other states, but without a permit, I'm SOL.

[bobbyfairbanks]

I am a libertarian as such I am against concealed carry permits. I see it as this. The supreme court ruled that Law enforcement cannot protect the individual person but the populace. So that being said I need to be able to protect myself.

The stupid people that do stupid things with guns will be met with dozens of guns from educated people. This will just clean up the gene pool.

[solomon751]

Whoa - thanks for that heads up Ranger. I was not aware that they passed a hi cap magazine ban in Denver County.

Read the legislation at http://www.handgunlaw.us/documents/NoHiCapChemSpray.pdf and it seems to suck pretty bad for those of us in Denver County. How does this effect someone with 30 and 45 rnd AK mags and what about CCW with 12 rnd mags in my 229? What do you think will happen if I get pulled over, declare my CCW and presence of a weapon, the cop checks and finds out I have a 12 rnd mag. Think they will burn someone over that?

Any input is appreciated!

(from the aforementioned site)

Colorado – City of Denver High Capacity Ammunition Magazines

City of Denver Ordinances Sec. 38-130. - Assault weapons.

a. All semiautomatic action, centerfire rifles with a detachable magazine with a capacity of twenty-one (21) or more rounds.

b. All semiautomatic shotguns with a folding stock or a magazine capacity of more than six (6) rounds or both.

Specific magazine prohibited. It shall be unlawful to carry, store or otherwise possess a magazine which will hold or may be modified to hold twenty-one (21) or more rounds.

There is a provision in the law if you are a non resident of Denver traveling through the area you can not be charged with breaking this ordinances.

[patrick0685]

your 12 round mag is less and 21 so you should be fine...

[David121582]

Actually after reading the regulation that you took that exerpt from there is no mention to pistols at all, only centerfire rifles , Folding Stock shotguns, and shotguns with greater than 6 rounds. There for if you CCW a handgun it doesn't matter what size magazine you have but if you conceal carry a shotgun or rifle (which is not legal) you may have trouble with the round counting. Just my two cents. [Beer]

[Byte Stryke]

stupid people will continue to do stupid things with or without laws being passed.
I liken it to drinking and driving, which by the way has been illegal for quite some time. People continue to do it, Some repeatedly.
Passing a law only criminalizes an act, it does not prevent it.

Do you honestly believe that a criminal traveling to commit a felony gives two fu**s about the concealed carry laws of this or any other state? Its a small drop in the bucket compared to the armed robery or murder he is going to commit.
Both of which are also illegal
Are you seeing a trend here?


The restrictions and requirements of a concealed carry license ONLY affect the law abiding citizen that intends only to defend themselves and their family.

The criminals? They are laughing.

[AirbornePathogen]

The permit will still be available to those who wish to get it but without it you have zero reciprocity and are illegal if you cross state lines.


My point exactly. Also, I have read the Second Amendment, in my opinion, it's the most important one- the one that's there so we can protect all the rest. And on a side note, I believe in the Second Amendment just as strongly as anyone else here. But, just because I'm in favor of SOME SMALL AMOUNT of regulation, that puts me in the "gun grabber" column? I'm about the farthest thing from it. Why don't we use this board to discuss the issue, and leave the personal attacks to those beneath us. THAT is a gun grabber tactic.

[Byte Stryke]

But, there are plenty of guys out there who have no business carrying a firearm. If it passes, I personally see an upswing in charges of Brandishing a Firearm and Felony Menacing being filed.



Ohh it will be like the wild west!
People will be shooting everyone!
Stop Fear Mongering...

This will not give license to people that don't already meet the legal ownership requirements.
your argument about "plenty of guys out there who have no business carrying a firearm" is invalid.




The permit will still be available to those who wish to get it but without it you have zero reciprocity and are illegal if you cross state lines.


My point exactly. Also, I have read the Second Amendment, in my opinion, it's the most important one- the one that's there so we can protect all the rest. And on a side note, I believe in the Second Amendment just as strongly as anyone else here. But, just because I'm in favor of SOME SMALL AMOUNT of regulation, that puts me in the "gun grabber" column? I'm about the farthest thing from it. Why don't we use this board to discuss the issue, and leave the personal attacks to those beneath us. THAT is a gun grabber tactic.


...Shall not be infringed.


But just for you, lets rewrite the entire bill of rights.
Lets start rewriting the second more along the lines of your way of thinking:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Authoritarian State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, may only be granted by the State. Such permissions are granted by the state provided they pay the firearms taxation and permit fees, are properly instructed in classes sanctioned by the state and file all proper paperwork and fulfill all other legal requirements of the State. Such permissions may be suspended at anytime without prior notice by any officer of the State in cases wherein the state deems the subjects of their territories are unworthy of such rights.


thank GOD we don't live in such a place.
if you take a little bit away, the whole thing falls down

"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."

[spyder]

stupid people will continue to do stupid things with or without laws being passed.
I liken it to drinking and driving, which by the way has been illegal for quite some time. People continue to do it, Some repeatedly.
Passing a law only criminalizes an act, it does not prevent it.

Do you honestly believe that a criminal traveling to commit a felony gives two fu**s about the concealed carry laws of this or any other state? Its a small drop in the bucket compared to the armed robery or murder he is going to commit.
Both of which are also illegal
Are you seeing a trend here?


The restrictions and requirements of a concealed carry license ONLY affect the law abiding citizen that intends only to defend themselves and their family.

The criminals? They are laughing.
Byte wins! +100 Now, you get a cookie!

[Byte Stryke]

Byte wins! +100 Now, you get a cookie!
Chocolate Macadamia Please
:D

[legaleagle]

Constitutional analysis provides for three levels of analysis for your rights. Since the second amendment is a fundamental individual right, strict scrutiny must be applied to ascertain the compelling state interest to limit your right. Justice Scala in the Heller decision thinks much like we do in that the 2nd is obvious in what it provides. The individual right to keep and bear arms - without infringement. However, Scalia also recognized that the 1st amendment falling under the same analysis as it too is a fundamental right and subject to strict scrutiny, can only be abridged by time, place and manner. Alas, you cannot yell fire in a crowded movie theater. Although we the big court has not been confronted with interpretation of limitations on the 2nd, we have some examples out there. The 1968 Firearms Act and full auto weapons; the average person not being able to own grenades, RPG, bazooka, etc. Presently, the DC legislatures are working hard to puch the Heller decision - MacDonald, etc. So far nothing has worked to define the scope of what a limitation may look like on the 2nd. Based on principles of law, I suspect it will be very narrow in scope. However, this may change if the liberals keep winning elections. Afterall it is the president that appoints the justices to a life time appointment on the bench. This power is only the appointment to the bench, not the removal.

I realize this is slightly off topic, but important to the understanding that while the 2nd your right shall not be infringed, the 1st has very limited and narrow exception to allow some restriction to time, place and manner for a compelling state interest. I also recognize the 1st does not contain the language that it shall not be infringed, so that is another argument that the 2nd and any limitation imposed shoud (must) require a greater compelling interest and/or narrower scope of restriction.

As for the Colorado constituional carry, I am all for it. The 2nd speaks to each person as an individual and speaks nothing of financial status to afford a permit to protect oneself. Therefore, the cost of a permit to carry outside the state for reciprocity makes more sense with that associated cost, except to the point that the state you are going to also has constitutional carry. At the end of the journey and Hickenloopers membership with the Mayors Agaisnt Guns, I doubt he would sign the bill. Recall, it took Bill Owens to get into office to finally pass the shall issue aspect of CCW as we know it today. The prior Dems shot it down everytime.

[legaleagle]

oops

[KevDen2005]

Constitutional analysis provides for three levels of analysis for your rights. Since the second amendment is a fundamental individual right, strict scrutiny must be applied to ascertain the compelling state interest to limit your right. Justice Scala in the Heller decision thinks much like we do in that the 2nd is obvious in what it provides. The individual right to keep and bear arms - without infringement. However, Scalia also recognized that the 1st amendment falling under the same analysis as it too is a fundamental right and subject to strict scrutiny, can only be abridged by time, place and manner. Alas, you cannot yell fire in a crowded movie theater. Although we the big court has not been confronted with interpretation of limitations on the 2nd, we have some examples out there. The 1968 Firearms Act and full auto weapons; the average person not being able to own grenades, RPG, bazooka, etc. Presently, the DC legislatures are working hard to puch the Heller decision - MacDonald, etc. So far nothing has worked to define the scope of what a limitation may look like on the 2nd. Based on principles of law, I suspect it will be very narrow in scope. However, this may change if the liberals keep winning elections. Afterall it is the president that appoints the justices to a life time appointment on the bench. This power is only the appointment to the bench, not the removal.

I realize this is slightly off topic, but important to the understanding that while the 2nd your right shall not be infringed, the 1st has very limited and narrow exception to allow some restriction to time, place and manner for a compelling state interest. I also recognize the 1st does not contain the language that it shall not be infringed, so that is another argument that the 2nd and any limitation imposed shoud (must) require a greater compelling interest and/or narrower scope of restriction.

As for the Colorado constituional carry, I am all for it. The 2nd speaks to each person as an individual and speaks nothing of financial status to afford a permit to protect oneself. Therefore, the cost of a permit to carry outside the state for reciprocity makes more sense with that associated cost, except to the point that the state you are going to also has constitutional carry. At the end of the journey and Hickenloopers membership with the Mayors Agaisnt Guns, I doubt he would sign the bill. Recall, it took Bill Owens to get into office to finally pass the shall issue aspect of CCW as we know it today. The prior Dems shot it down everytime.

Have any of the justices spoken of retirement or appear to be on their death bed in your opinion? Just curious if we should really worry about appointments during this administration

[colocowboy01]

It bill is not going to change the mind of many of the bad guys out there who want to carry a gun. It will hopefully encourage more of us good guys to carry a gun.

[Tweety Bird]

While sitting at our table at the gunshows, we get to talk to a lot of people about this. And I've been surprised at how many people we've spoken to actually oppose this bill.

Generally, their opposition to it is that they feel too many people will be carrying a gun without proper (or any) training or experience in using them. They generally seem to think it's OK as long as anyone who carries gets some sort of schooling on the use of a pistol.

I suppose this is a valid concern and while I don't agree with it, I understand their logic. The problem I have with it is that it puts a condition on the rights bestowed by the 2A.

So, I think that argument misses the point. The 2A guarantees the right to keep our guns and, the way I read it, also guarantees us the right to carry them. Nowhere does it say anything about qualifications or conditions to exercise that right. Living in a free and open society can never be absolutely free of risk, regardless of the gun-grabbers attempts to make it so.

Does that mean I'm against people getting training and building experience in the use of their gun? Hell no. In fact, I think people are foolish to carry a gun without it. But the constitution doesn't outlaw foolishness. It also doesn't guarantee exemption from consequence if the gun is used recklessly, carelessly, or in a fashion that is otherwise illegal or certain to bring civil consequences.

Just as your right to swing your fist ends at my face, your right to carry a gun ends when you use it in the wrong fashion, because they won't let you have your gun in jail.

I'm wholeheartedly in favor of Constitutional Carry but it'll never see the light of day, IMO. And if it should pass, I surely hope people think carefully (beforehand) about the consequences of using their gun against someone else. It just isn't as simple as buying a gun, sticking it in your belt and thinking you're "safe".

You guys all know this, I'm sure.

[Ranger]

In general I'm against anything that hinders our constitutional rights, but I also understand why some laws are in place that push the envelope of that. While everyone has the right to bear arms (concealed or not), we have to also realize that there are a lot of immature people out there that might do something stupid with that right.

I think about it like Bill Owens did with the smoking ban. He stated that he was dead set against the ban but knew that it was going to take effect eventually with or without him, so he passed the version he felt least offensive in order to prevent a more stringent one being passed later. The same goes for CCW, the requirement to go through training (however worthless much of that is right now) is better than having a bunch of morons pull their weapon on someone for no reason and then cause the left to pass a NO GUNS ALLOWED law like L.A.

Lesser of two evils, I have to pick my battles and I don't think I would go to bat on this one by itself. A complete ban, yes, but the requirement to go to a class to CC, while objectionable, is better than the possibility of not having the right at all.

[David121582]

Denied

[Irving]

I guess on the bright side, this just means more concealed carrying for me.

[legaleagle]

tweety bird - you are right about the 2A, IMO. You raise an interesting point that while we may have the right to carry concealed, many people need training. I am not asying it should be reuqired - rather, from a legal perspective civil law in that you have a duty to conduct yourself in a manner that it is safe to others (ie - driving a car, shooting a weapon). For some, breaching that duty is all too easy because of a lack of skill and/or knowledge. Many people do not realize this very arguement can be raised in civil court and the burden of proof is only a preponderance of evidence; much lower than beyond a reasonable doubt for criminal court.
In short, the lack of knowledge and training can be your worst enemy. THink about the term many shooters use - negligent discharge of a firearm. In such a situation, any damage or injury you cause is your fault through negligence, as you knew or should have known that such discharge could cause damage or injury to another. Just think about new teenage drivers and why insurance rates are high, unless experience and driving time dictate lowering the premiums. (I realize driving is not a right, but a privilege - consider it for the analogy).

Here is a good example of a lack of knowledge that can get you into serious criminal charges up to a felony. I hear alot of people in CCW classes say they will pull their gun out without shooting it to diffuse a situation. However, the justification for not shooting is that they did not fear for their life or serious bodily injury (the key element to deadly force). Unfortunately, the person in this situation is now the one first escalating to deadly force, not responding to it. In this situation, simple education seems to be the solution.

[legaleagle]

KenDev2005 - should you warry about appointments in this admin - yes. There have already been appointments of anti-gun justices.

FWIW - you do not need to be a lawyer or have sat a judge to be appointed. It is scary to me that someone who has not studied the law and does not understand its workings gets to make law in the highest court, without repercussion to a lifetime appointment.

[Guylee]

Looks like it got shot down guys. Here's the e-mail RMGO sent out:

"Constitutional Carry Dead in Colorado

Senate Dems kill landmark pro-gun legislation
Though not a surprise, yesterday the Senate State Affairs Committee voted 3-2 to kill HB1205, RMGO's Constitutional Carry bill, which was carried by St. Rep. Chris Holbert and St. Sen. Greg Brophy.
The legislation would have made Colorado a “permit optional” state for concealed carry, joining Vermont, Alaska, Arizona, and Wyoming.
Despite overwhelming testimony that states with similar laws did not, in fact, see an increase in violence, Democrat Senators in the State Affairs Committee (Sens. Rollie Heath, Betty Boyd, and Bob Bacon) voted against the bill while GOP Sens. Kevin Grantham and Bill Cadman voted for the legislation.
State Senator Greg Brophy (front) and RMGO Executive Director Dudley Brown testify in favor of HB1205 on March 23, 2011. Click the image to watch the testimony.
Senator Greg Brophy told committee members that HB1205 would simply level the playing field for law-abiding citizen, but criminals really don’t care what the law says – and don’t seek permits in the first place.
RMGO Executive Director Dudley Brown said that domestic violence prevention groups should support Constitutional Carry rather than oppose it, since the permit process itself is intimidating to many females who don’t want to be on lists and don’t normally think of themselves as gun advocates but might need the means to self defense in volatile situations.
“Why should a woman who wants to defend herself from a stalker or violent ex-boyfriend be forced to acquire an expensive permit, just for the permission to protect herself?” said Brown.
Yuma County Sheriff Chad Day, testifying on behalf of himself and Weld County Sheriff John Cooke, said the Second Amendment is a right. “Causing people to jump through government hoops turns that right into a mere privilege.” Sheriff Day cited numerous statistics to show that more citizens carrying concealed is a good thing for public safety.
Of course, Sheriff Day wasn’t the only law enforcement to speak on the bill. Boulder County Sheriff Joe Pelle (representing “Republican-In-Name-Only” Arapahoe Sheriff Grayson Robinson and Adams County Sheriff Doug Darr) opposed the bill.
Lobbyist Anne Marie Jensen, who represented the Colorado Association of Chiefs of Police but also normally works for Tom Mauser’s “Colorado Ceasefire Capitol Fund”, said “Sen. Brophy believes more guns will make citizens safer. Unfortunately, the Chiefs don’t agree.”
Those advocating for Constitutional Carry should take heart: it took 9 years to pass a “Shall Issue” law in Colorado, and this is a long-term fight. Just remember these votes in the 2012 elections.
RMGO has fought for Constitutional Carry (often called Vermont) since the founding of the group. And as the famous movie line goes, We’ll be back."

You guys probably already know, just figured I should throw it in the thread for posterity's sake.

[gravedigger]

I knew the Senate would kill it. Mindless drones.

[Guylee]

Yeah I guess there wasn't much hope for it once it got to the Senate but we'll just try again!



And again...and again...

[Byte Stryke]

well I think we should apply this very same logic to everything!
Lets make everyone safer. Senators, turn in your $80K SUVs to be destroyed, recycled and made into playground equipment because you MIGHT Commit a DUI and kill someone!

[CMP_5.56]

The list of people that opposed this bill is very helpful in voting decisions I would say.

[Beau]

The list of people that opposed this bill is very helpful in voting decisions I would say.
Those Senators are:

Bob Bacon-D Jefferson
bob.bacon.senate@state.co.us (bob.bacon.senate@state.co.us)

Betty Boyd-D Larimer
betty.boyd.senate@state.co.us (betty.boyd.senate@state.co.us)

Rollie Heath-D Boulder
rollie.heath.senate@state.co.us (rollie.heath.senate@state.co.us)

[Dalendenver]

The thing that most bothers me about the way this was killed is that it never got to the floor of the senate. Seven democrats voted for it in the house but when it got to the senate the majority leader assigned it to a committee that had three anti-gun democrats and 2 republicans. It was planned to be killed in committee so that the dems would never have to vote on it and jeopardize their reelection chances. Remember who those three are and work against them come the next election.

[Daniel_187]

The thing that most bothers me about the way this was killed is that it never got to the floor of the senate. Seven democrats voted for it in the house but when it got to the senate the majority leader assigned it to a committee that had three anti-gun democrats and 2 republicans. It was planned to be killed in committee so that the dems would never have to vote on it and jeopardize their reelection chances. Remember who those three are and work against them come the next election.

Unfortunately there is not enough of us anymore, most people have there heads burried in the sand

[Tweety Bird]

The thing that most bothers me about the way this was killed is that it never got to the floor of the senate. Seven democrats voted for it in the house but when it got to the senate the majority leader assigned it to a committee that had three anti-gun democrats and 2 republicans. It was planned to be killed in committee so that the dems would never have to vote on it and jeopardize their reelection chances. Remember who those three are and work against them come the next election.

That's exactly why, as Rosen says, PARTY trumps PERSON. If the Republicans don't have a majority on the floor, they can't control the makeup of these committees. The only way around this is to make the Dims a minority in the Senate in the next election. Then, after that, work on the Guv's seat.

[trlcavscout]

We cant oust them by vote because their are to many dumb ass dems. Colorado has become such a liberal shit hole that laws like this will never pass here, they still believe the cops will save everyone and stop all crime. And that is ok I would rather watch a lib get shot, raped, beheaded and drug through the streets rather then explain why I shot the bad guy.

[Bailey Guns]

We cant oust them by vote because their are to many dumb ass dems. Colorado has become such a liberal shit hole that laws like this will never pass here, they still believe the cops will save everyone and stop all crime. And that is ok I would rather watch a lib get shot, raped, beheaded and drug through the streets rather then explain why I shot the bad guy.

Now that sounds like a reality TV show I'd watch!

[Byte Stryke]

where is legaleagle?

I am wondering if the Civil rights act of 1871 would not apply here.

Every person who under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, Suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1871

this act has been used and is still active as far as I can tell.

The Act was invoked in the 2010 Robbins v. Lower Merion School District (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robbins_v._Lower_Merion_School_District) case, where plaintiffs charged two suburban Philadelphia high schools secretly spied on students by surreptitiously and remotely activating webcams embedded in school-issued laptops the students were using at home, violating their right to privacy. The schools admitted to secretly snapping over 66,000 webshots and screenshots, including webcam shots of students in their bedrooms.


so in as much as they senators on the committee used their personal beliefs to deprive the citizens of the state of Colorado their rights as guaranteed under the second Amendment, Would this not apply?

[Lochinver]

IMHO, I'm not sure that the Civil rights act of 1871 would apply here.

In the strictest sense and in my opinion. The right to bear arms is has not been harmed in Colorado as open carry without a permit is still and always has been allowed. Barring Metro Denver and any other applicable communities of course. And a method of obtaining a concealed permit is in effect. Granted, paying for it is a royal pain.

The Colorado constitution provides:

"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."

This limiting the practice of concealed carry as a matter of point and interpreting the practice of open carry. I feel this is consistent with the 10th amendment of the Constitution allowing the states to impose and point out their own laws, as long as they did not bypass the U.S. Constitution.

Several states found the wisdom to right into their own constitutions some form of the right to bear arms. I think this has proved to be very wise indeed as the states that did not put it into good plain language are some of the most restrictive states to date. i.e. New Jersey, California, New York.

[legaleagle]

This will probably put you to sleep. I have not had a chance to research the issue, however, my experience would suggest that the CRA 1871 does not get triggered as a remedy. This is not to say it is not applicable, rather it does not provide a redressable remedy.From a fundamental standpoint you are delving into a body of very complex and complicated law to measure whether a law made by a state or the fed gov't is constitutional or not. There are issues as to preemption of laws being over inclusive or under inclusive, equally protective, etc. Generally, states cannot enact a law that dimishes your rights. This however is not without limits. Even in the Heller decision, Justuce Scalia with surgical precision pointed out that even fundamanetal rights are not without limitation. Example, your first amendment right is subject to limitations for time, place and manner. WHile you can't yell fire in a crowded movie theater, you can burn the American Flag.These limitations measured under strict scrutiny to determine if a compelling interest exists for the limitation to be imposed. Strict scrutiny applies because the alleged infringement invovles a fundamental enumerated right under the US Constitution. Thus, it is reasonable to to presume and expect that your second amendment right under the US Constitution is subject to the same scrutiny (in fact, this was part of the holding in the Heller case, the first case to ever decide this issue. FWIW, the liberals argued that the lowest testing process of rational basis was applicable, which generally requires only that it is more rational to protect the health safety and welfare of those impacted - very rarely has this test deterined laws to be not constitutional) and therefore limitations are allowed if they can pass the strict scutiny test. However, the limitations allowed under strict scrutiny have yet to be determined as for the second amendment. Justice Scalia mentioned that no decisive limits or restrictions were konwn like that of the first amendment, except that the the prohibitions set forth in DC did not meet a compelling interest of DC to limit the rights under the second amendment, thus Heller prevailed. This is why Heller 2 and the McDonald case arose. An example of a restriction that may be acceptable (I say may as it has not been challenged in court) is the Gun Control Act of 1968 to limit access to full automatic weapons to civilians without registration. The analysis would likely be that the GCA 1968 is constitutional, because it did not eliminate the second amendment right, rather the gov't presented a compelling interest to limit certain trigger control mechanisms for weapons, not weapons themselves, as the same weapon in a semi auto variant is not regulated. The same could be said of bazookas, grenades, etc.In the case of constitutional carry not passing in Colorado, the law proposed was not actually a limitation or restriction on rights, rather an expansion. As such, the failure of the law to pass did not deprive any rights. Therefore, the CRA 1871 cannot provide a remedy for any wrong as no wrong occurred. There may also be some question as to the Act applying to State actors versus Federal actors; research would be required here, with an argument that other federal laws protecting civil rights have been applied, particularly when police officers violate civil rights with excessive use of force causing physical injury. Perhaps the the way to look at the matter is to ask the question, has the State Constitution as enacted restricted or limited your second amendment right under the US Constitution. This has not yet been challenged. If you have followed this mess up to this point, lets add another twist. Take for example the City and County of Denver. It is a Home Rule city. Think back to the Meyer case regarding the City's challenge to uphold its ban on open carry and attempts to ban concealed carry, even though Gov. Owens enacted State law that prohibited such limitations, which without argument applies to non Home Rule cities. In general, the argument is that Home Rule City's rule making process can trump/preempt that of the State. To explain why Denver lost on the concealed carry issue and prevailed on the open carry issue is an exercise in twisting the concepts of constitution analysis. If anyone wants further information or has questions, feel free to PM me. However, please be respectful that I would otherise normally charge hourly rates for such research and opinions.

[legaleagle]

delete

[Tweety Bird]

Damn, Andy. My little mechanic brain just can't get hold of that many words all at once.


Thanks again for the use of the wrench. Sorry it took so long to return but I certainly have enjoyed not having to make the trek to Denver 5 days a week. We have our very own on order but apparently it's out of stock. No matter, we probably won't need it for years.


Now back to your regularly-scheduled talk.

[legaleagle]

Dan - it makes my head hurt too. That's why I bill out at $295 hour.

A discussion over breakfast would clear everthing up - [ROFL3]

Thanks for the wrench return. No worries on the wait, just glad to help out.[Beer]

[David121582]

You were right that did put me to sleep, thanks

[Byte Stryke]

IMHO, I'm not sure that the Civil rights act of 1871 would apply here.

In the strictest sense and in my opinion. The right to bear arms is has not been harmed in Colorado as open carry without a permit is still and always has been allowed. Barring Metro Denver and any other applicable communities of course. And a method of obtaining a concealed permit is in effect. Granted, paying for it is a royal pain.

The Colorado constitution provides:

"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."

This limiting the practice of concealed carry as a matter of point and interpreting the practice of open carry. I feel this is consistent with the 10th amendment of the Constitution allowing the states to impose and point out their own laws, as long as they did not bypass the U.S. Constitution.

Several states found the wisdom to write into their own constitutions some form of the right to bear arms. I think this has proved to be very wise indeed as the states that did not put it into good plain language are some of the most restrictive states to date. i.e. New Jersey, California, New York.


The problem exists in that the right to bear arms is becoming a taxed right.
The number of municipalities, cities and other places barring open carry is rapidly growing.
Read also as, your right to carry a weapon for the defense of yourself and your family without paying the coat/shirt-tax is rapidly diminishing.

The Kommiefornia immigrants are bringing their illogical laws with them.




note: I only corrected the word "right-write" as my brain kept tripping on it :)

[Matheo]

In my humble opinion, its a bad idea. I think that they should make them a little easier for law abiding citizens to aquire, but make the training and classtime more involved and in depth. I have a few friends with ccp/ccw's and I dont even fully trust them at the range yet, much less if sh*t hit the fan...

Just my .02

[Byte Stryke]

In my humble opinion, its a bad idea. I think that they should make them a little easier for law abiding citizens to aquire, but make the training and classtime more involved and in depth. I have a few friends with ccp/ccw's and I dont even fully trust them at the range yet, much less if sh*t hit the fan...

Just my .02

so then we make rights by appointment only? and who do we appoint to decide who is and who isn't allowed to carry under what conditions?

I prefer the deselective process in place now.
You have the right unless you prove you don't deserve it.
As it should be.

[rammit]

In Washington state there is no training requirement, just put in your application and they run a background check and your good to go, I think that if you can own a gun you should be able to carry it, the requirement to have a CCW has not stopped the thousands of criminals who carry guns on a daily basis, they probably cant even legally own them....

[Irving]

Freedom isn't free.

[RobertB]

If you don't put in your $1.05, who will?