Printable View
I honestly think this is a ploy by the Dems to say the voted for a gun rights bill, or rolled back firearms restrictions in a hope to retain their seat if they are in a contested district. Nothing more than political smoke and mirrors. As pointed out by others, if passed, it would likely not increase the number killing machines on the streets since those newly allowed to ccw can't per other regulations. So in their mind, they supported gun rights, while not true lay allowing more gun rights.
There are plenty of 18-20 year old military personal that this bill would effect.
- Married and off post.
- E-4+ and living off post.
- Reservists/Guardsmen
- MP's and Recruiters that are authorized to carry on base/.gov Annex.
- Single guys that have an Apartment out in town, family nearby, storage unit off base, keep their weapons at an acquaintances house etc.
Why shouldn't someone that has far more advanced training on weapons than the average civilian but is equally lacking in civilian world tactics be carrying for their own defense/defense of others? If they take it upon themselves to apply the fundamentals of safety and marksmanship combined with solid vetted CCW minded tactics and equipment selection than that's a win-win for the forces of good.
Velocitas, Opprimere,
Violentia Operandi
In the meantime, I have emailed and called every member of both houses of the state legislature and urged them to vote for pro gun laws and a repeal of the magazine ban and to overturn the BGC law for private transfers.
Not that most of them really care what I think.
Does any one know if the mag repeal made it out of the senate today???
They are still hearing testimony on HB 17-1036, Concerning the Permitting the Carrying of Concealed Handguns on Public School Grounds.
how does it look in congress?
Mag repeal is dead. (shocker).
.
re: 18-20 mil/ccw...
Thinking, "maybe I'm crazy...", I talked with a former E-7(p)/SFC(p) who retired after 21 years, with time in a 1SG slot as his final position. His MOS was 11C (mortarman). Explained that this law would allow 18-20 year olds who are in the military or honorably discharged an exception to the 21 year age limit for CCW in CO.
He was in agreement with my all points, except my contention that specifically targeting the military would be more likely to set a commander or 1SG on edge, rather than just all 18-20 year old people. As he put it, "As a platoon sergeant or 1SG, I wouldn't care if it was the military or all, I'd still have to deal with it."
He agreed that:
1) Military training, by and large, has no special effect on civilian ownership and use of firearms -- they're two different animals. As such, the CCW class would be the determining factor in legal readiness w/ no appreciable effect coming from .mil training. Pursuant to this, I'd contend, as I have been, that it should be 18-20 w/ CCW class per the current law, regardless of military association.
2) Snuffy is able to be very responsible in the military context but that provides no guarantee of behavior in the civilian context; "I've seen the blotter reports man."; "young soldiers think they're badasses and it takes some time to make them realize they're not." etc. were quotes as regards that.
3) Military regulations would not bend over for a newly enacted civil law which allows freedoms (for example, it doesn't matter that pot is legal in CO. As far as this goes, no commander is going to bend regs and policies to accomodate more headache for themselves). Thus, the majority of military members in this category would see no benefit. He agreed with my points on both the illegality of storing off post under state law and the regulatory rigmarole of getting one's personal firearms out of the Arms room at will.
The CO NG is ~3500 personnel strong. Of those, I'd guestimate 1000 or less would fall into being affected by this law at the intentional level. Unsure on Reserve units' personnel strength. Unsure on married/on post and off post numbers, but again, the majority would likely be in the barracks.
As such, I contend this law would mainly affect those on Fort Carson, Peterson and the Academy.
In short, this law is akin to nothing more than fluff as it would not have an actual effect on the majority of its target demographic. And that demographic is fairly small as it is.
As for apparent contradiction, I don't see my argument as such (nor was an example given, leaving the accusation baseless).
Young Soldiers will go to their training, particularly if they have no other training -- muscle memory demands this.
That training is not per se suited to the task at hand. It's not that they have bad training or need to be babysat (well, they do, but that's my jadedness talking), but simply that nothing sets them apart from non-military age-group peers.
I simply see no reason for this law. It's like so many other laws as regards the yellow-ribbon rah rah mentality. It's like a legal bill version of the WWP, in that most of its effort will not affect its target raison d'être. At best, it accomplishes not much. At worst, it wastes political capital and provides a mechanism for (D) to put a fake feather in their cap for its support.
Im going to borrow a phrase from the Lefts playbook. "If it saves just one life it's worth it"
Would you rather recognize an Americans God given, Constitutionally enumerated right or choose not to because some of them might be irresponsible with that right? Even if it is not recognizing all law abiding 18+ olds as legitimate citizens.
Or because they may not have the ideal level of maturity, training, background, or skill to carry a concealed firearm in public?*
No other age bracket and no other subset of this age bracket has placed more of a sacrifice on the alter of freedom than the 18- 20 year old American Military service member.
These young men are/were responsible for the safety and security and recovery of America's Nuclear arsenal, armed to the teeth with between two and three firearms with one of them being fully automatic, carrying and using explosives. Yet the moment they gear down and rotate out with another group of 18-20 year old American volunteers they are treated like second class citizens in the eyes of the law. No adequate self defense for you! P.S. thanks for watching those atomic weapons and keeping us safe!
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...5116fd58af.jpg
*Hint none of us do, we're all fallible humans.
Velocitas, Opprimere,
Violentia Operandi
There's plenty of examples of legal oxymorons. For example, the idea that one can be too drunk to consent to sex but apparently able to consent to driving and thus get a DUI.
I'm not against 18-20 year olds w/ CCW. I'm against the ineffectiveness of this bill. One would think that maturity at the automagical age of 21 is the onus for being able to drink, yet I have a feeling that the same sponsor of this bill would blanch if it was suggested to lower the drinking age.
Don't look for consistency in the "law". You won't find any.