Do you oppose Senate Bill 13-195? If so, why?

I understand the opposition to most of the Bills being debated in the Senate but there is one which I thought that people on both sides of the gun debate would embrace. This is Senate Bill 13-195 which would put an end to online training for concealed-carry permits.

Over the years I have taken (and given) several CCW courses and, though I have learned a lot from every instructor, there are some courses that have focused a lot of attention on "the gun fight" but have completely ignored topics such as legal ramifications and Criminal/Civil Liabilities. Personally, I would like to see concealed-carry classes in Colorado standardized (like they are in states like Utah) where every instructor is teaching the same material and which requires the student to demonstrate not just proficiency in the use of a firearm, but also a course that thoroughly discuses topics such as situational awareness and conflict avoidance.

Most of the on-line courses that I have seen are nothing more than a regurgitation of the NRA First Steps course which, at best, offers only basic marksmanship skill. The other great limitation that I see with on-line courses is that the student's questions can go unanswered.

So, back on topic, do you oppose Senate Bill 13-195? If so, why?

Not opposed to this having to be an in person course. However I don't believe it should be some long drawn out day long rigorous course. Far as I am concerned I have not seen anyone shooting up places with a CCW or being unsafe that makes me believe the current in person instruction is of concern. The process of going through the process at the sheriffs office can be hard enough for most people. Don't scare them away, we need more people out there with permits. Cover safety, law, rules of force etc and some range time would be great

No. Fuck that noise. Why do we continue compromising ourselves into further and further regulation? Leave the 2A alone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cysoto

I understand the opposition to most of the Bills being debated in the Senate but there is one which I thought that people on both sides of the gun debate would embrace. This is Senate Bill 13-195 which would put an end to online training for concealed-carry permits.

Over the years I have taken (and given) several CCW courses and, though I have learned a lot from every instructor, there are some courses that have focused a lot of attention on "the gun fight" but have completely ignored topics such as legal ramifications and Criminal/Civil Liabilities. Personally, I would like to see concealed-carry classes in Colorado standardized (like they are in states like Utah) where every instructor is teaching the same material and which requires the student to demonstrate not just proficiency in the use of a firearm, but also a course that thoroughly discuses topics such as situational awareness and conflict avoidance.

Most of the on-line courses that I have seen are nothing more than a regurgitation of the NRA First Steps course which, at best, offers only basic marksmanship skill. The other great limitation that I see with on-line courses is that the student's questions can go unanswered.

So, back on topic, do you oppose Senate Bill 13-195? If so, why?

---

Tell me which of our other rights require a permission slip.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Teufelhund

Tell me which of our other rights require a permission slip.

---

If I understand your questions correctly, you are implying that the Second Amendment guarantees the right of the individual to carry concealed weapons; is that right?

I don't embrace any further Gov control on the right to defend myself and my family PERIOD!

To further expand on my reply, if the "student" wishes to get the best instruction/experience possible, let it be their choice to seek out and obtain, not some government mandated "feel good" law.

I support it for the reason of reciprocity. It could have waited until other states cut us off, then there would be alot more support for it.

I don't think you should have to have any training for a CHP, so yes I am against the bill.

I don't believe that training to carry concealed should be required. It's not required to open carry.

They're simply instituting hoops to jump so that we can exercise a right. This isn't a privilege and shouldn't come with stipulations.

I am all in favor of training for CCW holders, much like I'm strongly in favor of motorcyclists wearing proper safety gear, but I don't believe it's the government's place to mandate either.

Yep... Just the responses I expected from most people...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blacklabel

I don't believe that training to carry concealed should be required. It's not required to open carry.

---

Good point!

I make a decent supplemental income teaching concealed carry. I'd gladly give it up for Constitutional carry...no permit required for law abiding citizens. This bill is just another incremental step to more and more infringement of our 2A rights.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cysoto

If I understand your questions correctly, you are implying that the Second Amendment guarantees the right of the individual to carry concealed weapons; is that right?

---

Damn skippy.

Keep and BEAR

Whether I have it in my house, car, hip, or under my shirt, the 2nd guarantees me the right to bear my weapon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JM Ver. 2.0

Yep... Just the responses I expected from most people...

---

God forbid we exercise our rights without government intrusion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TFOGGER

I am all in favor of training for CCW holders, much like I'm strongly in favor of motorcyclists wearing proper safety gear, but I don't believe it's the government's place to mandate either.

---

Agreed!

I understand where all of those who say "it is our right... you don't need to train for a right" are coming from. And on principal... I agree. However, I have seen tons of people handle and operate a firearm at the range and the thought of them concealed carrying scares the bejeezus out of me. Sweeping everyone in the range, finger on the trigger, just bad, awful, pisspoor discipline. I know, I know... they have just as much and every right to carry as you and I do. But good lord, I am not opposed to them getting some training and learning how to properly handle and operate a firearm. I also know a lot of people who don't have the proper mindeset and temperament for carrying a firearm. Myself... I had a much different mindset before I took my concealed carry class. So I stand on the side that there is LOTS of value in taking a good CCW course. If we don't care about people getting some good, proper training before hand... I guess we can always discipline them AFTER they make a fatal mistake. But I see where people on both sides of the fence are coming from.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bailey Guns

I make a decent supplemental income teaching concealed carry. I'd gladly give it up for Constitutional carry...no permit required for law abiding citizens. This bill is just another incremental step to more and more infringement of our 2A rights.

---

Are residents of Colorado less trustworthy than the residents of Arizona?

I think the difference is that Arizona voters have elected representatives who are not inclined to second guess their citizens. Colorado voters seem to be leaning more and more toward government intrusion and nannyism.

Cy, I am a proponent of as much training as someone can afford and attend. I've been to expensive classes that weren't worth it and free classes that were worth more than a luxury cruise. It is really difficult to know what you are going to get before the class is over. I guess you could say that: Training is like a box of chocolates...[LOL]

I just know that if the legislature is involved, and given the average legislator's knowledge about firearms, tactics, and firearms liability, I do not want them writing any laws concerning what I have to spend my money on to exercise my rights.

My $.02

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blacklabel

God forbid we exercise our rights without government intrusion.

---

What part if my comment made you think it was a bad thing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HBARleatherneck

and yet we dont hear about people carrying concealed or open carry shooting themselves or others.

---

I will have to respectfully disagree with this statement. I know more than one CCW holder who have had a negligent discharge; one of them injured himself in the process. I don't know if more or better training would have prevented these incidents but they are a clear indicator that, when handling firearms, a mistake on our part can have serious consequences.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cstone

Cy, I am a proponent of as much training as someone can afford and attend.

---

I agree 100% and I wish that most gun owners would understand the value of proper training which I don't believe that anyone can get from an on-line class.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JM Ver. 2.0

What part if my comment made you think it was a bad thing?

---

You know what they say about assuming...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HBARleatherneck

Im just against the government mandating it.

---

How do you feel about the government mandating the consumption of chocolate? [Coffee]

Since a class is already required, I would prefer it to be an interactive class to be able to address questions and allow the instructor to assess the student. Not that I have heard of it happening but an instructor could decline to give someone their certificate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cysoto

If I understand your questions correctly, you are implying that the Second Amendment guarantees the right of the individual to carry concealed weapons; is that right?

---

I don't believe the founding fathers cared if a weapon was carried concealed or openly. They said that your right to be armed shall not be infringed. That includes in public...concealed or openly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kraven251

Since a class is already required, I would prefer it to be an interactive class to be able to address questions and allow the instructor to assess the student. Not that I have heard of it happening but an instructor could decline to give someone their certificate.

---

If the requirement must exist, I prefer that it be as accessible and inexpensive as possible. The requirement for training, background check etc. is simply a coat tax. I can carry my handgun openly but if I put my coat over it, I must pay a fee/tax.

I believe that anyone willing to carry a firearm is best off taking a thorough training class but certainly do not feel it is a requirement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WETWRKS

I don't believe the founding fathers cared if a weapon was carried concealed or openly. They said that your right to be armed shall not be infringed. That includes in public...concealed or openly.

---

This, whatever bullshit brainwashed concept of the 2nd these Libs have given to some of the alleged pro 2a folks is ridiculous!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blacklabel

If the requirement must exist, I prefer that it be as accessible and inexpensive as possible. The requirement for training, background check etc. is simply a coat tax. I can carry my handgun openly but if I put my coat over it, I must pay a fee/tax.

I believe that anyone willing to carry a firearm is best off taking a thorough training class but certainly do not feel it is a requirement.

---

Agree completely.

re open carry: Now that Deadly Weapon has been redefined, be vary careful how you answer the cop that comes to see you after the MWAG call. You might be disturbing the peace.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bailey Guns

I make a decent supplemental income teaching concealed carry. I'd gladly give it up for Constitutional carry...no permit required for law abiding citizens. This bill is just another incremental step to more and more infringement of our 2A rights.

---

+1

honestly, I don't think there should be any training requirement. There isn't to own a gun. There isn't to open carry. There isn't to shoot at a range, to shoot in the woods (except hunting), to defend your family or your home.

If these absolutely HAS to be training, then I think it should be standardized, in person, with live fire and show the applicable laws and pathways to insurance, what lawyers to contact in the event of an incident, how to work with the police in a contact situation etc.

yes, those of us on here see a ton of info from the multiple instructors, but the average Joe who doesn't sit on here all the time might not get the best instructor, or does a quick online class and doesn't pay attention to the videos or googles any questions on a test.

The best proof though that nothing needs to change is the simple facts and data. I can't recall any concealed carry permit holders that have gone on shooting sprees, that have got into severe trouble, or really anything that has made the headlines.

Personal responsibility goes long way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cysoto

If I understand your questions correctly, you are implying that the Second Amendment guarantees the right of the individual to carry concealed weapons; is that right?

---

It quite clearly guarantees the right of the individual to keep and bear arms, free from infringement. Determining the method of carry, capacity of carry, conditions of carry, locations of carry, permissable ammunition of carry (i.e. "copkillers") are clearly violations of the spirit of the law. Yet here we are, willing to accept that certain methods of carrying certain weapons are not legal as arbitrarily determined by the government that usurps our constitution incrementally.

Anyone who argues otherwise is making excuses for that oppressive government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sniper7

I can't recall any concealed carry permit holders that have gone on shooting sprees, that have got into severe trouble, or really anything that has made the headlines.

---

George Zimmerman

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cysoto

If I understand your questions correctly, you are implying that the Second Amendment guarantees the right of the individual to carry concealed weapons; is that right?

---

It wasn't really a question, but yes, that is what I mean. The Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms, without restriction.

While I think training is a great idea for everyone, according to the letter of the highest law of the land, the Constitution, it is illegal for the government to require it.

"...shall not be infringed."

That's pretty clear to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TFOGGER

I am all in favor of training for CCW holders, much like I'm strongly in favor of motorcyclists wearing proper safety gear, but I don't believe it's the government's place to mandate either.

---

Just 'bout sums it up. The fact that I need a permit to practice a natural, Constitutionally protected right is complete bullshit. You don't need a permit to speak your mind, practice your religion, peaceably assemble, or write down your thoughts, why do I need one to keep and bear arms, concealed or otherwise?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cysoto

George Zimmerman

---

If some dude starts beating the shit out of me and I am in fear of my life, I'd shoot him, too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cysoto

George Zimmerman

---

Only because the media pushed that bullshit.