Two more gun bills head to Colorado House

[ChunkyMonkey]

http://www.coloradoan.com/viewart/20130328/NEWS11/303280019/Two-more-gun-bills-head-Colorado-House


DENVER (AP) — Proposals to change how people get concealed carry gun permits in Colorado and new restrictions on gun ownership for domestic-violence offenders will be up for consideration in the House.The proposals scheduled for committee votes Thursday have already cleared the Senate.
One proposal would allow some online gun education for permit-seekers, but would require at least some portions be taught in person. Another expands a ban on gun ownership for people convicted of certain domestic-violence offenses, or who are facing protection orders. They would have to relinquish firearms and ammunition.
Other bills that have already passed, including limits on ammunition magazines, have generated more controversy.
The two bills are part of the Democrats’ package of new gun legislation responding to mass shootings last year in Connecticut and suburban Denver.

[hatidua]

Where does "bearing arms" + "shall not be infringed" come into play with the various requisite hoops people are being asked to jump through?

Yes, I'm well aware that those who financially benefit from CCW training programs think this is just peachy, but isn't this putting undo burden on law abiding citizens who wish to exercise their rights?

[ChunkyMonkey]

Where does "bearing arms" + "shall not be infringed" come into play with the various requisite hoops people are being asked to jump through?

Yes, I'm well aware that those who financially benefit from CCW training programs think this is just peachy, but isn't this putting undo burden on law abiding citizens who wish to exercise their rights?

Same crap as some of store owners are supporting BGC.

[Wulf202]

Yes, I'm well aware that those who financially benefit from CCW training programs think this is just peachy, but isn't this putting undo burden on law abiding citizens who wish to exercise their rights?
There are many of us that benefit and are against this.

[Ridge]

Another expands a ban on gun ownership for people convicted of certain domestic-violence offenses, or who are facing protection orders. They would have to relinquish firearms and ammunition

This is already federal law. It's a fucking waste of time and money to try to pass it again at state level.

[Aloha_Shooter]

To be honest, the only reason I'm against the provision requiring some of the CCW training to be in person is because the Dems are pushing it and I therefore know it's just one more piece of gradualism

I've done a lot of computer-based training and in-person instruction (as both student and instructor). Frankly, I'm usually not impressed with CBT, especially for something as important as concealed carry

CBT works for stuff that is enhanced by repetition but the instructor (in this case, a computer) doesn't get any feedback to see if the student is really getting the material other than a some quizzes or a test at the end that could be forgotten as soon as s/he clicks "Next". Because of that, I'd probably support the in-person training requirement if it was pushed by someone I trusted like Maketa but I DON'T support it because I DON'T trust Morse or any of the other Democrats in Denver.

[Teufelhund]

Another expands a ban on gun ownership for people convicted of certain domestic-violence offenses, or who are facing protection orders.

Does this mean anyone can file a restraining order against anyone else, resulting in the second person losing their RTKABA, even without a criminal conviction? Sorry, how is that Constitutional again?

[Ridge]

Does this mean anyone can file a restraining order against anyone else, resulting in the second person losing their RTKABA, even without a criminal conviction? Sorry, how is that Constitutional again?

It's been law for ages. If the police cannot find any evidence to back up the DV claim, or the restraining order is dropped, then rights are restored.

Come on, it's on the 4473.

[Aloha_Shooter]

It's been law for ages. If the police cannot find any evidence to back up the DV claim, or the restraining order is dropped, then rights are restored.

Come on, it's on the 4473.

^^ This.

"The choice is not between order and liberty. It is between liberty with order and anarchy without either. There is danger that, if the court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact."

-- Justice Robert Jackson, dissenting opinion in Terminiello v. Chicago

[Teufelhund]

It's been law for ages. If the police cannot find any evidence to back up the DV claim, or the restraining order is dropped, then rights are restored.

Come on, it's on the 4473.

Oh, you're supposed to read those?

I guess I just didn't realize you can have your rights stripped because someone claimed you said something mean to them. Seems like that puts it directly under the "privilege" column.

[Teufelhund]

^^ This.

"The choice is not between order and liberty. It is between liberty with order and anarchy without either. There is danger that, if the court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact."

-- Justice Robert Jackson, dissenting opinion in Terminiello v. Chicago

I don't think I can concur with the black and white philosophy of a Justice who didn't go to law school, appointed by the most blatant Marxist to ever hold the Presidency prior to 2008.

[Bailey Guns]

Where does "bearing arms" + "shall not be infringed" come into play with the various requisite hoops people are being asked to jump through?

Yes, I'm well aware that those who financially benefit from CCW training programs think this is just peachy, but isn't this putting undo burden on law abiding citizens who wish to exercise their rights?

I'm one that benefits from concealed carry training and you're wrong, as you have been when you've made this blanket statement before. Even though it would put a substantial dent in my annual income I'm an advocate of constitutional carry. Many other instructors on this site are against these types of laws as well.

So your "peachy" comment is as much bullshit as the hoops we have to jump through to exercise our gun rights.

[Aloha_Shooter]

I don't think I can concur with the black and white philosophy of a Justice who didn't go to law school, appointed by the most blatant Marxist to ever hold the Presidency prior to 2008.

His point was that the law WASN'T absolutist; in point of fact, YOU are the one trying to make a black-and-white determination of what is Constitutional. Not adhering to the absolutist philosophy is why the SCOTUS has held that you do NOT have the freedom of speech to the point of yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

You need to bone up on the Google-fu (or Yahoo-fu or whatever the heck you use). Jackson went to law school (for a year), he just didn't graduate. Lots of country lawyers in our nation's history, he just happens to be the last one ever appointed to the Supreme Court. He also served effectively as the chief US prosecutor at Nuremberg and the US Attorney General prior to WWII. I'll take a non-graduate like Jackson over graduates like Eric Holder, Hillary Rodham, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, David Souter, Michelle Robinson, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, or Lawrence Tribe any day of the week.

[Teufelhund]

His point was that the law WASN'T absolutist; in point of fact, YOU are the one trying to make a black-and-white determination of what is Constitutional. Not adhering to the absolutist philosophy is why the SCOTUS has held that you do NOT have the freedom of speech to the point of yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

You need to bone up on the Google-fu (or Yahoo-fu or whatever the heck you use). Jackson went to law school (for a year), he just didn't graduate. Lots of country lawyers in our nation's history, he just happens to be the last one ever appointed to the Supreme Court. He also served effectively as the chief US prosecutor at Nuremberg and the US Attorney General prior to WWII. I'll take a non-graduate like Jackson over graduates like Eric Holder, Hillary Rodham, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, David Souter, Michelle Robinson, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, or Lawrence Tribe any day of the week.

Are you saying you think it's fine our inalienable rights are conditional? Justice Jackson effectively said in the above quote, "Rights are subject to common sense restrictions." You're right, I do not agree and that is absolutist of me. You may have noticed (since you pasted it) that quote was an opinion with which the majority of SC Justices did not agree. Which other dissenting opinions offered by Democratic Justices do you think are sage advice?

It is not illegal to yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater; it is illegal to yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater when there is no fire.

[ChunkyMonkey]

Rub rub rub rub rub...

http://coloradopeakpolitics.com/2013/03/28/spiking-the-football-president-obama-to-visit-colorado-to-celebrate-gun-grab-victory/

SPIKING THE FOOTBALL: President Obama to Visit Colorado to Celebrate Gun Grab Victory (http://coloradopeakpolitics.com/2013/03/28/spiking-the-football-president-obama-to-visit-colorado-to-celebrate-gun-grab-victory/)

[SA Friday]

I'm concerned about that DV bill. I need to read it. I thought I heard it allowed denial for any DV arrest, period. Basically, arrest and no conviction on a DV and it doesn't matter. You lose your gun rights. Anyone have a link to the DV bill?

[stevelkinevil]

I'm one that benefits from concealed carry training and you're wrong, as you have been when you've made this blanket statement before. Even though it would put a substantial dent in my annual income I'm an advocate of constitutional carry. Many other instructors on this site are against these types of laws as well.

So your "peachy" comment is as much bullshit as the hoops we have to jump through to exercise our gun rights.

Agreed. I too derive much of my income from firearms and CCW training. However I am all for constitutional carry. There may be some instructors who feel it's "peachy" but I don't know any.

[Kraven251]

This is already federal law. It's a fucking waste of time and money to try to pass it again at state level.

Except the DV statutes in CO make the federal level look friendly.

[SAnd]

"They would have to relinquish firearms and ammunition."
I wouldn't trust them to return any weapons or ammunition back in a timely manner or undamaged condition.

[brokenscout]

That's what I heard also, a quick "legal" way forward in Gun Control and Confiscation. I see this ending poorly
I'm concerned about that DV bill. I need to read it. I thought I heard it allowed denial for any DV arrest, period. Basically, arrest and no conviction on a DV and it doesn't matter. You lose your gun rights. Anyone have a link to the DV bill?