🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <36996ec9.0@news.mho.net>, Melissa <Melissa9Z@Zmho.net> wrote:
>In article <369967cc.0@news.mho.net>, Melissa9Z@Zmho.net (Melissa) wrote:
>>Well, now that we have a new Republican Governor and Republican controlled 
>>legislature ( which I dread on some other issues, but that's another thread), 
>>will we be seeing a good clean simple concealed carry law pass this year?
>>
>>Is anything in the works already?
>>
>>Who can we fax or email our support to?
>
>Just did some digging and answered my own question. It can be found at:
><http://www.state.co.us/gov_dir/leg_dir/sess1999/sbills99/sb084.htm>
>
>Looks pretty decent to me. Discussion?

  Since they're amending a current law rather than writing a new one from
scratch, that web page (as voluminous as it is) doesn't quite show the whole
picture. However, from what I can see, it works out something like this:


  - A state-wide permit and permit issuing system. The sheriff of each
county is responsible for reviewing the permits apps. based on this bill
and issuing a permit if the checks pass. The checks are the same in every
county.

  - "Shall-issue" permit system. That is to say, they have to give you a
permit 90 days after you submit your application unless they have a very
good reason not to. These reasons include:
    * Must be 21.
    * Must have taken a handgun safety training course, which includes
information about the legal use of deadly force.
    * Must not have a restraining order on you/warrant out for your arrest.
    * Must not have been convicted of a third degree assault, sexual
assault, domestic violence, or similiar crimes OR a drug conviction in the
last 10 years.
    * Does not presently consume alcohol in excess.
    * Is not mentally ill.

  - Has an "escape clause": "If the sheriff has documentable grounds to
believe that an applicant has been or is likely to be a danger to himself
or herself, to others, or to the community at large, based on information
obtained while verifying [the permit info] the sheriff shall deny the permit."

  - A "revoke clause" where a permit can be revoked by a sheriff if s/he
has reason to believe that the holder no longer meets one or more of the
"reasons to issue".

  - "Drunk clause": "A person commits a class 2 misdemeanor if: The person
has in his or her possession a firearm while the person is under the
influence of intoxicating liquor or of a controlled substance, as defined
in section 12-22-303 (7), C.R.S. Possession of a permit issued under section
18-12-105.1, as it existed prior to July 1, 1999, or possession of a permit
issued pursuant to part 2 of this article is no defense to a violation of
this subsection (1)."

  IOW "If you carry your gun concealed while you're drunk or on drugs, you
lose. A concealed-carry license is not an excuse for doing so."

  - Someone who wants to carry their handgun concealed has to have their
permit and a photo ID with them when they carry concealed. Unconcealed carry
still requires no permit. (That's guaranteed by the Colorado state
constitution.)

  - Reciprocity - Colorado will honor a concealed-carry license from any
state that honors concealed-carry licenses from Colorado.


  Not a bad bill, all things considered. The salient features in my mind
being "shall-issue", "training required" and "escape clause". I don't
really care one way or another on "shall-issue" provided the safeguards
are good enough. And, in this case, they require training (including teaching
of the laws of when lethal force is permissible), a background check and
prints, and etc... I consider this an acceptable level of screening. 
I also like the "drunk clause" as well. I see drinking and carrying as
analagous to drinking and driving - smart people won't do it, but some
idiot might. So the law makes it very clear that carrying drunk is illegal,
period.


  I'm sure Scott will rant on about any number of things... like how we're
regulating a constitutional right and so on. But I believe that this law
does a pretty good job of allowing people who really need a concealed carry
permit to get one without being hassled or arbitrarily denied by the local
police because, despite all evidence, they don't think that said person is 
capable of carrying a handgun responsibly. So despite the fact that it
probably is a violation of the second amendment, I think it's a good
thing. 

  Next we need to require training for anyone who wants to carry a gun in
public, concealed or not. Then maybe I'll be happy. (Or at least less
unhappy.)


          -Ben
-- 
Ben Cantrick (mackys@dim.com)        |     Yes, the BGC dubs still suck.
BGC Nukem:     http://www.dim.com/~mackys/bgcnukem.html
The Spamdogs:  http://www.dim.com/~mackys/spamdogs
We expect others to act rationally even though we are irrational. -Scott Adams