Colorado Concealed Carry Bill Laden with Bad Provisions

WAGCEVP

New member
Colorado Concealed Carry Bill Laden with Bad Provisions

Gun Owners of America E-Mail/FAX Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org

February 9, 2001

The Colorado legislature is again revisiting the concealed carry
idea, and this bill may be the worst ever offered.

SB83 by Sen. Ken Chlouber (R-Leadville) will be heard Monday in the
Senate Judiciary, where the Democrats hold a 4-3 majority.

SB83 creates a number of Criminal Safezones, where even permit
holders could not carry. Though the current law allows permit
holders to carry in these areas, SB83 would strip citizens of the
right to carry in these areas:

* Schools (elementary, middle, junior or high schools; public or
private) if you get out of your vehicle when you are dropping
off or picking up your children in the parking lot or driveway

* Government buildings (any building with any state or local
government office) such as a shopping mall (some have drivers
license offices or other government departments housed inside)

* Any high school, college, university or professional athletic
event

* Anyplace where alcohol is served (current state law allows
permit holders to carry concealed but not to be intoxicated)

If you live in El Paso, Larimer, or any number of counties that are
issuing permits, this bill is a huge step in the wrong direction: in
many cases it sunsets your permit and stops you from carrying in
areas where you can carry now.

The bill also creates a new statewide database of permit holders
administered by Colorado's version of the FBI, the CBI. Incidents
like Waco, Ruby Ridge and Filegate should make you concerned about
letting the CBI gain this much information and power.

The bill also incorporates into this proposed CCW law the federal
Lautenburg Gun Ban, where citizens convicted of so-called
domestic violence charges -- such as a wife yelling at her
husband or a parent spanking a child -- cannot obtain the permit.

SB83 also charges far more than it costs to do the background check,
fattening bureaucrats' coffers and costing gun owners more than
$100, to say nothing of the cost of the government-mandated training
required in the bill.

Finally, the bill gives sheriffs an "out." Sheriffs can deny
permits to someone whom they deem "presents a danger to himself or
others," which to many in law enforcement means anyone not in their
department. This turns a "shall issue" bill back into a "may
issue."

With anti-gun zealot Sen. Ken Gordon (D-Denver) chairing the
committee, SB83 is likely to get worse, not better. Efforts to
clean it up will likely be turned aside quickly by most members of
the committee.

What you can do:

Contact the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee and urge them
to defeat this sham of a concealed carry bill. Let them know that
we'd rather have the current law, which allows sheriffs to issue on
their own terms, than create Criminal Safezones that leave citizens
defenseless.

Be certain to contact the Republican members, who might think they
are doing the right thing by supporting a concealed carry bill; they
need to know that this bill is not a solution to Colorado's
carrying concealed problems.


Senate Judiciary Committee

Name Pty Dis Phone E-mail

Ken Gordon D 35 303-866-4875 kgordon@sni.net
Doug Linkhart D 31 303-866-4861
Ken Arnold R 23 303-866-4876 karnold@sni.net
Jim Dyer R 06 303-866-4866 jimdyer@frontier.net
Rob Hernandez D 34 303-866-4862 rhernand@sni.net
Mark Hillman R 02 303-866-6360 mhillman@sni.net
Sue Windels D 19 303-866-4840 windels@sni.net

From outside the metro area, you can call toll free:
1-888-473-8136


**************
Do not reply directly to this message.

To subscribe to free, low-volume GOA alerts, go to
http://www.gunowners.org/ean.htm on the web. Change of e-mail
address may also be made at that location.

To unsubscribe send a message to gunowners_members@mailmanager.net
with the word unsubscribe in the subject line.

Problems, questions or comments? The main GOA e-mail address
goamail@gunowners.org is at your disposal. Please do not add that
address to distribution lists sending more than ten messages per
week or lists associated with issues other than gun rights.
 
For folks in El Paso county, this bill would be a step in the wrong direction, for sure. But for people who live places where the sheriff refuses to issuw CWP, it's probably preferrable to the current state of affairs.

One good thing about a state issued CWP is that it would hopefully lead to reciprocity with other states. As it is now, states such as WY do not recognize permits issued by cities and counties, so basically no one from CO can legally carry in WY, unless they jump thru a lot of hoops.

Personally, with the Dems controlling the Senate, I don't expect much of anything to come out of this. The wounds of Columbine are not yet healed.
 
Typical of GOA extremism. If it ain't Vermont-style, then it ain't acceptable. After Columbine, we here in CO will be lucky to see any CCW bill passed, much less a Vermont-style bill. Let's get a "shall issue" law on the books first, then worry about the details. Sheesh!
 
Umm, no.

proximo - This article does not say, "if it's not Vermont carry, it sucks." The concerns raised are valid.

The proposed bill is "may issue, not "shall issue" - since Sheriffs can deny to whoever they want to. This is no better than what we have now.

Right now with a CCW from Larimer County, I can carry just about anywhere. With the proposed bill, I effectively will not be able to carry while going out to dinner. Red Robin serves alcohol, remember?

I won't be able to carry if I have to stop by any building that houses a government office - the mall? (I needed to get my watch repaired, drop off some film, and browse the knife shop.)

I won't be able to carry if I go for a walk and cut through the park by the local school. I won't be able to carry when I go to pick up my SO from CSU where she works. I wouldn't be able to carry if I had kids to pick up from school.

Gee, with all those places I can't carry, having a permit is essentially worthless. Already, I do not carry at work due to their policy (that I comply with - it's my choice to work there), and that drastically reduces the amount of time that I do carry.

In short, it does suck, but not because it's not Vermont-style carry. It sucks because it is literally worse than what we have now.

What would help would be a Sheriff somewhere in Colorado who decided to issue to any CO resident. The Larimer Cty Sheriff will only issue if you live or work in this county.

-z
 
Smithz, You and other current CCW holders who were lucky enough to know someone or live in a county with an enlighted sheriff are going to lose something with this bill, but the rest of the state's citizens get to join the party. I for one won't shed a tear for you if it means we can double or triple the number of CCW holders. If you've read "More Guns, Less Crime", you know that we all win in the end.

As far as this not being "shall-issue", you should read the text of the bill itself. It fills all the criteria of "shall-issue" with the following "out" for the sheriff:

"(2) REGARDLESS OF WHETHER AN APPLICANT MEETS THE CRITERIA SPECIFIED IN SUBSECTION (1) OF THIS SECTION, IF THE SHERIFF HAS A REASONABLE BELIEF THAT DOCUMENTED PREVIOUS BEHAVIOR BY THE APPLICANT MAKES IT LIKELY THE APPLICANT WILL PRESENT A DANGER TO SELF OR OTHERS IF THE APPLICANT RECEIVES A PERMIT TO CARRY A CONCEALED HANDGUN, THE SHERIFF MAY DENY THE PERMIT."

Which means the sheriff must have documented proof of previous behavior that warrants permit denial. Its an exercise in newspeak to claim that this means the sheriff has discretion to arbitrarily deny a permit. If you think I'm reading this wrong, please explain.

Personally, for most Coloradoans, this is a hell of a lot better deal than we've had.

[Edited by proximo on 02-09-2001 at 10:54 PM]
 
Ok, I relent, but only a bit.

First of all, here is the actual bill:

http://www.leg.state.co.us/2001/ine...81BCFE8D872569D200605162?Open&file=083_01.pdf

Second, yes, of course I stand to lose something. I would naturally prefer to not have more restrictions.

Third. After reading the actual bill, this is not as bad as it sounds in the GOA report because there must be some documented basis for rejections (putting more teeth in the "shall" part of "shall issue"), and there is an appeal process.

Fourth. In regard to the carry limitations, my concern in that it will be so *annoying* to stay law-abiding that it will just be too much of a hassle to carry.

Four-and-a-half: victim disarmament zones. need I say more?

Lastly, can someone else take a stab at parsing this section, from page 25?

5 SECTION 4. 18-12-105.5 (3) (d), Colorado Revised Statutes, is
6 amended to read:
7 18-12-105.5. Unlawfully carrying a weapon - unlawful
8 possession of weapons - school, college, or university grounds. (3) It
9 shall not be an offense under this section if:
10 (d) The person, AT the time of carrying a concealed
11 weapon, HELD A VALID written permit TO CARRY A
12 CONCEALED WEAPON ISSUED pursuant to section 18-12-105.1,
AS IT EXISTED PRIOR TO JULY 1, 2001, OR, IF THE WEAPON
15 INVOLVED WAS A HANDGUN, HELD A VALID PERMIT TO CARRY A
16 CONCEALED HANDGUN ISSUED PURSUANT TO PART 2 OF THIS ARTICLE;
17 EXCEPT THAT IT SHALL BE AN OFFENSE UNDER THIS SECTION IF THE
18 DEFENDANT WAS CARRYING A CONCEALED HANDGUN IN VIOLATION OF THE
19 PROVISIONS OF SECTION 18-12-213; or
20 SECTION 5. 18-12-106 (1) (d), Colorado Revised Statutes, is
21 amended to read:
22 18-12-106. Prohibited use of weapons. (1) A person commits a
23 class 2 misdemeanor if:
24 (d) He THE PERSON has in his OR HER possession a firearm while
25 THE PERSON is under the influence of intoxicating liquor or of a
26 controlled substance, as defined in section 12-22-303 (7), C.R.S.
27

In particular, what do they mean by "OR, IF THE WEAPON INVOLVED WAS A HANDGUN, HELD A VALID PERMIT TO CARRY A CONCEALED HANDGUN ISSUED PURSUANT TO PART 2 OF THIS ARTICLE" ??

regards
-z
 
Back
Top