🚀 go-pugleaf

On 11 Jan 1999 00:04:49 -0700, mackys@dim.com (Ben Cantrick) wrote:

>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:

No, they are *repealing* the current authority to issue a "concealed
weapons permit" (18-12-105.1) and they are *replacing* it with a
"concealed HANDGUN permit" system.

>
>  - 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.

Yes.

>
>  - "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."

Yes, and this is dangerous to liberty but probably unavoidable.  Some
language prohibiting such determinations based on *LEO agendas* which
might declare that anyone who seeks a permit is a danger to the
community and can therefore be denied is necessary.  Some objective
standard ought to be required beyond "belief" on the part of the LEO.

>
>  - 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.)

I don't see a need for other ID if the CCW permit form is properly
designed...and it should be a STATE design, issued BY the state to the
counties.

I lost my DL and went to the Boulder DL bureau to get a new one, and
the only photo ID I had was my CCW permit from the Sheriff....the
drones at the DL bureau *wouldn't accept it* as sufficient ID...even
though it has my picture and the Sheriff's signature on it....but they
DID accept an *automobile registration* and a CAP membership card
which does not have a picture as "sufficient" ID to reissue my DL.
What a crock.   Steal somebody's registration and/or wallet, and you
can get a new DL with YOUR picture on it.....

Anyway, the CCW permit should be visually verifiable on the street,
uniform in appearance and designed so as to prevent alteration and/or
forgery.   Basically...a modified DL format would work.

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

We should also lobby to have the residency requirement eliminated.
There's no reason an out of state resident shouldn't be allowed to go
through the process and obtain a Colorado permit.

>
>
>  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.

Um...was this crack called for?   I've been arguing this matter for
years now, and one thing which even I know is that the Colorado
Constitution explicitly *denies* any such constitutional right and
thus we necessarily have to depend on the legislature for permission.

Part of the language in this bill is *mine*, which I suggested to Sen.
Chlouber years ago...that is the sections which remove the
"affirmative defense" language.


> 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. 

I agree.

>
>  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.)

Now THAT would be a violation of the Constitutions, both state and
federal.

Regards,

Scott Weiser

******
"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend upon my
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!"
******
http://www.dimensional.com/~weiser/

Copyright 1998 by Scott Weiser

By the act of transmitting any commercial 
e-mail or advertisment to this address, you are expressly 
contracting with me in my professional capacity for a 
consultation on the ad's effectiveness and you expressly 
agree to pay to me the sum of $250.00 for each such 
consultation within 10 days of my report to the original 
sending address.  You further expressly agree that all 
actions for recovery of fees owed shall be subject solely 
to the laws of the State of Colorado, which shall have 
sole jurisdiction.