Colorado gun group: Let pot users have concealed carry permits

I see it very Similar to Mark, and dare I say it, but it's a case by case, person by person issue. A responsible person isn't going to carry when they decide to go out and let their hair down at the bar, likewise they aren't going to do it stoned out of their gourd. But someone who's an honest to goodness addict (drug, alcohol, or otherwise) isn't going to see anything wrong with their actions, or with carrying a gun when they can hardly stand, just as most don't think twice about driving in the same shape. Point being, IMHO if you have any repeated alcohol and or drug convictions no CCW for you, outside of that, I have a hard time saying that they (alcohol and MJ) should be treated any different.

I also somewhat agree with Ronin on the issue, there's not a reliable live testing platform for MJ impairment like BAC. I honestly think that's probably the single biggest hurdle to nationwide legalization. The DUI issue surrounding it, along with current testing measures surrounding work, etc only being able to tell if you have used it within a given time period, not if you are under the influence of it, leaves too many liabilities on the table.

It's far more important to repeal the background check law and magazine ban law than it is to pass this.

This doesn't even really rate.

[QUOTE=TFOGGER;1794229One would hope that people that are applying for CCW permits have enough sense not to carry while impaired, but the cynic in me says otherwise, regardless of what the state does. Those that are inclined to carry while intoxicated will do so if the state allows them to have a CCW permit or not.[/QUOTE]

After recieving my CCW 28ish yrs ago, It was one of the reasons i started my slow but sure move away from consuming alcoholic beverages, outside the home. IF we were drinking / at bars, the gun was not on hand & vice versa The fear of loosing my CCW, which at that time was by sheriff not state wide, out weighed having a beverage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XC700116

I see it very Similar to Mark, and dare I say it, but it's a case by case, person by person issue. A responsible person isn't going to carry when they decide to go out and let their hair down at the bar, likewise they aren't going to do it stoned out of their gourd. But someone who's an honest to goodness addict (drug, alcohol, or otherwise) isn't going to see anything wrong with their actions, or with carrying a gun when they can hardly stand, just as most don't think twice about driving in the same shape. Point being, IMHO if you have any repeated alcohol and or drug convictions no CCW for you, outside of that, I have a hard time saying that they (alcohol and MJ) should be treated any different.

I also somewhat agree with Ronin on the issue, there's not a reliable live testing platform for MJ impairment like BAC. I honestly think that's probably the single biggest hurdle to nationwide legalization. The DUI issue surrounding it, along with current testing measures surrounding work, etc only being able to tell if you have used it within a given time period, not if you are under the influence of it, leaves too many liabilities on the table.

---

While i agree with the repeat alcohol, i disagree with the drug part. For many a decade in this country getting caught with a few joints was considered a felony. In Wyo if you were in possession ( Pot) you were charged with a felony. John or Jane Doe who in their younger years had a run in with LE while in possession of Pot, would be disqualified because their states law is stricter than say CA or WA. Same for other states, NY at one time had a ZERO TOLERANCE for possession of pot, ANY AMOUNT. You got caught you were gone for 13+ months, depending on qty / weight. It was a longer sentence for weed than cocaine.

Hear, Hear!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Justin

It's far more important to repeal the background check law and magazine ban law than it is to pass this.

This doesn't even really rate.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XC700116

I also somewhat agree with Ronin on the issue, there's not a reliable live testing platform for MJ impairment like BAC.

---

I don't think this is as important as many of you believe it to be. Ask Bailey about handing out a DUI to a girl who blew a .02 BAC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Justin

It's far more important to repeal the background check law and magazine ban law than it is to pass this.

This doesn't even really rate.

---

^ He speaks the truth! I could care less about potheads carrying right now. we have much more important things we should be focusing on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crays

Good point. I completely disregarded the Federal aspect in my argument without even realizing it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by foxtrot

No. This is a federal form. Marijuana is still Illegal in Colorado. Amendment 64 is an affirmative defense, that is all.

But, that said, how many Stoners ever have checked yes. The "questions" on a 4473 are very close to a waste of time. So how do we pass an imaginary law to make something legal (CCW) when the handgun they are supposed to carry is theoretically illegal.

This is an imaginary problem that doesn't need a bandaid. Stoners will continue to lie. If they are high, they will lose their CCW. If one shithead leaves a gun on a toilet and a kid pops themselves, the MJ can be blamed because its not endorsed a this point.

PPL here think these types of regs advertise Colorado as FREEDOM. Do you know what type of person these laws have attracted, Amendment 64 especially? NOT libertarians. Blue democrats, entitlement leaches, low wage earners. Please stop going out of our way to let them $#$# our State to hell.

ETA: Basically, you think this is a step in the direction of freedom but you are changing the demographic makeup of our state, ensuring Colorado becomes "little California" within the next decade, which we were already well on our way, now with little hope. I wish people would have stepped back and seen the bigger picture.

Quoting the original article: WHY ARE WE trying to attract ANTI firearm people to our state.[/FONT][/COLOR]

---

Trot, I can't quite tell if your entire response is directed at me, or a General commentary, but please take note that I recognized, and admitted, my error pertaining to fed law in post #19.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Irving

I don't think this is as important as many of you believe it to be. Ask Bailey about handing out a DUI to a girl who blew a .02 BAC.

---

It's important to the "voting public", scientific validation really has no bearing on it, remember, we're talking politics, not reason. Point being, the majority of people are far more afraid of pot and thereby DUI because they can't put a number on it.

I know people that could peg the meter without anyone even knowing they'd been drinking. I'm sure MJ is much the same way. But until there's an instantaneous test that can assign a number vs a legal limit, people will get nutted up about it. And the current testing systems flag hot a LONG time after consumption and thereby aren't in any way shape or form evidence of anything beyond having ingested the substance at some point within a certain time frame that's too long to prove anything by. The vast majority of people think a DUI is completely dependent on BAC level and not demonstrated impairment, when in reality the BAC is just the extra evidence/final nail in the coffin to it.