Two more gun bills head to Colorado House

[ChunkyMonkey]

http://www.coloradoan.com/viewart/20...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.