CO Carry law

[jeepin64]

So i was talking to my friend and he said that the whole having to have a CO permit has only passed a small commitee and that it isnt an actual law yet. Anyone else heard anything?

J

[sw99]

True. It has passed the house commitee so far. It is soon coming up for final senate approval. It is expected to pass.

I have been told that it will probably be july before it's actually in effect.

[Yota]

It negates my Utah permit (for CO use anyway), but I don't see it as any kind of big sinister thing. I always thought it made sense to have a CO permit anyway, which is why I got one. With out-of-state permits you can never be sure an officer is going to know that the attorney general approved it anyway.

Besides, lots of states already don't allow non-resident permits.

That said, this will be yet another law from the Democrats that does absolutely nothing to prevent crime. All it does is keep CCW fees from flowing out of state. Perhaps if more fees stay in state they can lower the @#$%^& price.

[zillacon]

[/QUOTE]That said, this will be yet another law from the Democrats that does absolutely nothing to prevent crime. All it does is keep CCW fees from flowing out of state. Perhaps if more fees stay in state they can lower the @#$%^& price.[/QUOTE]

You hit that one on the head.

[sw99]

Besides, lots of states already don't allow non-resident permits.



Florida is an interesting one... They have reciprocity with the most states overall and they pretty much give their permits away. But, if your a Florida resident, you are required to have a Florida permit to carry concealed.

[denverd0n]

Perhaps if more fees stay in state they can lower the @#$%^& price.
I'm willing to bet you $100 right now that this will not happen. In fact, my guess is that they are doing this so that they have a monopoly on issuing permits, and then they'll RAISE the fees!

And being my cynical self, my guess is that this is what the Democrats have had in mind all along. First take away the option of getting a license elsewhere. Then raise the fee so high that no one but the rich and connected can afford one. We all know that most Democratic politicians think that only the rich and well-connected should be allowed to defend themselves against crime.

[jnschwie]

I'm willing to bet you $100 right now that this will not happen. In fact, my guess is that they are doing this so that they have a monopoly on issuing permits, and then they'll RAISE the fees!

And being my cynical self, my guess is that this is what the Democrats have had in mind all along. First take away the option of getting a license elsewhere. Then raise the fee so high that no one but the rich and connected can afford one. We all know that most Democratic politicians think that only the rich and well-connected should be allowed to defend themselves against crime.

My thoughts exactly, and if you find someone to take your bet, maybe they'll take mine too. I'm in for $100. :(


And I think it is kind of sinister. It affects a lot of us with Utah permits, and a lot of businesses that train for Utah permits in this state.

[ccondrey]

I guess I've never understood why we were allowed to get a Utah permit (or any other state for that matter) permit in the first place.

You aren't allowed to pick which state you want to register your car in, or pick which state you want to get your driver's license in. I dunno - to me it just makes sense to require you to get a CO permit if you are a CO resident. :confused:

[denverd0n]

I dunno - to me it just makes sense to require you to get a CO permit if you are a CO resident.
It makes a certain amount of sense to me, too. But I still think there are ulterior motives at work here.

[jeepin64]

I guess I've never understood why we were allowed to get a Utah permit (or any other state for that matter) permit in the first place.

You aren't allowed to pick which state you want to register your car in, or pick which state you want to get your driver's license in. I dunno - to me it just makes sense to require you to get a CO permit if you are a CO resident. :confused:

Its for people like me that travel a decient amount and want to be able when you travel. OR if you move alot. That way you dont have to get a new one for everystate

J

[Gunter]

I'm willing to bet you $100 right now that this will not happen. In fact, my guess is that they are doing this so that they have a monopoly on issuing permits, and then they'll RAISE the fees!

And being my cynical self, my guess is that this is what the Democrats have had in mind all along. First take away the option of getting a license elsewhere. Then raise the fee so high that no one but the rich and connected can afford one. We all know that most Democratic politicians think that only the rich and well-connected should be allowed to defend themselves against crime.

you took all those words right outta my head.
X2

[Yota]

I'm willing to bet you $100 right now that this will not happen. In fact, my guess is that they are doing this so that they have a monopoly on issuing permits, and then they'll RAISE the fees!

And being my cynical self, my guess is that this is what the Democrats have had in mind all along. First take away the option of getting a license elsewhere. Then raise the fee so high that no one but the rich and connected can afford one. We all know that most Democratic politicians think that only the rich and well-connected should be allowed to defend themselves against crime.

I ain't takin' that bet. ;) What I posted was more in the vein of what I think they should do.

I think it is more likely that fees will stay the same while they nickle-and-dime us by trying to attach all kinds of conditions to carry. Like passing a prescribed course-of-fire or a difficult written test (which other states do already). Then they will start dialing back the places we can legally carry to the point that carrying becomes a practical impossibility (whcih other states have done).

There are some "red" states where the list of places you can't carry is as long as my arm. Texas is one of them. Colorado is one of the best states in terms of freedom of carry IMO. The list here is stunningly short relative to other states.

I would oppose any of these measures vigorously. But these are classic things Democrats do. They target things that, to the ignorant 80%, seem like a good idea; yet upon even cursory inspection they improve nothing.

[jnschwie]

I guess I've never understood why we were allowed to get a Utah permit (or any other state for that matter) permit in the first place.

You aren't allowed to pick which state you want to register your car in, or pick which state you want to get your driver's license in. I dunno - to me it just makes sense to require you to get a CO permit if you are a CO resident. :confused:

I was in favor of Utah/Florida permits for the simple reason that they are one step closer to what the situation SHOULD be: NO permits. A la Vermont.

The second amendment makes no mention of "passing a prescribed course-of-fire or a difficult written test."


But I suppose I should start studying for the freedom of speech test I'll no doubt need to take at some point in my life in order to get a permit for that too.

[Yota]

But I suppose I should start studying for the freedom of speech test I'll no doubt need to take at some point in my life in order to get a permit for that too.


Standing ovation, Josh. :beer:

[ccondrey]

I was in favor of Utah/Florida permits for the simple reason that they are one step closer to what the situation SHOULD be: NO permits. A la Vermont.

The second amendment makes no mention of "passing a prescribed course-of-fire or a difficult written test."


But I suppose I should start studying for the freedom of speech test I'll no doubt need to take at some point in my life in order to get a permit for that too.

Ehhhhh - things aren't exactly like they were in the late 1700s either. In general, guns were a way of life back then, and an integrated part of society. Back then, your father (or someone else) taught you how to shoot, hunt, and protect yourself and your family.

Today it's a bit different. Sure there are some of us that were fortunate enough to have learned shooting sports from our father, or other mentor at young ages, but there are many people with no experience with firearms. These people come of age and then for one reason or another they decide they want to not only have a firearm - but carry it with them everyday.

Maybe I'm a cynic, but at least half the people I see at the range are down right scary. From their inability to hit what they're aiming at (I'm not talking expert marksmanship here - but the inability to hit a pie plate at 21'), to their lackadaisical safety practices, to the generally poor relationship they have with their firearm. The idea that these people could be carrying their guns everyday scares me.

I'm all for making the CCW test harder. I don't think anyone would argue that our current test are a joke. Harder written portion? You bet. More emphasis and education needs to happen regarding carry laws, what happens after a shooting, when to shoot, when not to shoot, etc. A harder range test? Absolutely. If you can't pass a legitimate proficiency test - then buy pepper spray.

I'm sure I'll catch a lot of heat over this one, but I don't believe that in the society we live in today 'anyone' with a pulse and an index finger should be able to have a pistol in their back pocket. It's not 1776 anymore.

[Yota]

Ehhhhh - things aren't exactly like they were in the late 1700s either. In general, guns were a way of life back then, and an integrated part of society. Back then, your father (or someone else) taught you how to shoot, hunt, and protect yourself and your family.

Today it's a bit different. Sure there are some of us that were fortunate enough to have learned shooting sports from our father, or other mentor at young ages, but there are many people with no experience with firearms. These people come of age and then for one reason or another they decide they want to not only have a firearm - but carry it with them everyday.

Maybe I'm a cynic, but at least half the people I see at the range are down right scary. From their inability to hit what they're aiming at (I'm not talking expert marksmanship here - but the inability to hit a pie plate at 21'), to their lackadaisical safety practices, to the generally poor relationship they have with their firearm. The idea that these people could be carrying their guns everyday scares me.

I'm all for making the CCW test harder. I don't think anyone would argue that our current test are a joke. Harder written portion? You bet. More emphasis and education needs to happen regarding carry laws, what happens after a shooting, when to shoot, when not to shoot, etc. A harder range test? Absolutely. If you can't pass a legitimate proficiency test - then buy pepper spray.

I'm sure I'll catch a lot of heat over this one, but I don't believe that in the society we live in today 'anyone' with a pulse and an index finger should be able to have a pistol in their back pocket. It's not 1776 anymore.

Anyone with a pulse and a trigger finger can already have a gun in their pocket. They're called criminals.

And that's why I'm in favor of the least restrictive carry laws, within reason.

True, it's not 1776. Guns are far more prevalent now and far easier for criminals to get. I'd say it's worse now and gun violence stats would back me up.



.

[denverd0n]

Ehhhhh - things aren't exactly like they were in the late 1700s either.
You know, you're right! Gee! I hadn't thought of that. There was no TV in the 1700s. No internet. No radio. DAMN! That First Amendment is just totally out of date. Of course, we could change it, if it no longer applies, but why? Let's just start ignoring it like we do the Second Amendment!

Sorry, but this "things have changed" argument just doesn't hold even the least little drop of water. If things have changed, and the Amendment needs to change, then a process exists for making that happen.

Maybe I'm a cynic, but at least half the people I see at the range are down right scary.
I wouldn't disagree with that, but then half the people who post here are pretty scary, too, and probably shouldn't be allowed freedom of speech.

See how it works?

[jnschwie]

Anyone with a pulse and a trigger finger can already have a gun in their pocket. They're called criminals.

And that's why I'm in favor of the least restrictive carry laws, within reason.


Egg-zachary.

Its another perfect case of legislation written with good intentions, but only serving to cause hassle to law abiding citizens. (just like censorship, just like land closures)


And as scary as a lot of people you see at the range are, I'd take my chances with them 100x before favoring restrictions. For the most part, that crew is goofy, redneck, and of worse aim even than me. But every last one of them is polite, at least while there.

[sw99]

The second amendment makes no mention of "passing a prescribed course-of-fire or a difficult written test."




Nor does it have provisions that restrict felons from possessing firearms?

Times have changed a bit since then...I am one of the folks that think that the person carrying a concealed handgun legally should have passed a thorough background check; they must be somewhat proficient in using the firearm as well.

Wait until the laws get tougher and a standardized practical and written test are required. They will also be closing the loophole that allows a permit holder to keep renewing their permit without providing another proof of training document. Right now, Joe Schumuckatelli can get a permit and keep renewing for as long as he wishes. This will be changing in the next several years.

[denverd0n]

Nor does it have provisions that restrict felons from possessing firearms?
Specious argument. Felons don't have the same rights as the rest of us. The Constitution specifically permits laws that restrict a felons rights, so long as "due process" is followed.

[sw99]

And...Your missing my point.

[jnschwie]

Your point is crystal clear, but I certainly will never agree with it.


Guess I just love the idea of freedom too much. :shrug:

[Whitey]

Nor does it have provisions that restrict felons from possessing firearms?

Times have changed a bit since then...I am one of the folks that think that the person carrying a concealed handgun legally should have passed a thorough background check; they must be somewhat proficient in using the firearm as well.

Vermont is the way the CCW's should work and on a National level at that!

IMO, Restrictive CCW laws give the edge to the law breaker. How much of a background check does a criminal have to go thru to carry? How proficient are the BG's?

If an honest, law abiding citizen chooses to carry a concealed weapon, then you can bet that person will do it conscientiously and certainly not in a reckless manner. Those that would carry otherwise are the exception and not the rule. The honest and law upholding tend to do just that.


Wait until the laws get tougher and a standardized practical and written test are required. They will also be closing the loophole that allows a permit holder to keep renewing their permit without providing another proof of training document. Right now, Joe Schumuckatelli can get a permit and keep renewing for as long as he wishes. This will be changing in the next several years.

So, how many times have you had to retake the drivers test, not simply the eye test, but the whole drivers test to prove that you haven't forgotten how to drive?

Yet, vehicle accidents account for 43,000 deaths or so per year, much higher than accidental firearms related deaths. What about a mental stability test? A health test? I could go on, the scenario's are endless.

To me, your view, which I can appreciate and you can certainly have, puts the burden of proof on the innocent in a needless manner. Sort of like, guilty until proven innocent.

[jnschwie]

Vermont is the way the CCW's should work and on a National level at that!

IMO, Restrictive CCW laws give the edge to the law breaker. How much of a background check does a criminal have to go thru to carry? How proficient are the BG's?

If an honest, law abiding citizen chooses to carry a concealed weapon, then you can bet that person will do it conscientiously and certainly not in a reckless manner. Those that would carry otherwise are the exception and not the rule. The honest and law upholding tend to do just that.




So, how many times have you had to retake the drivers test, not simply the eye test, but the whole drivers test to prove that you haven't forgotten how to drive?

Yet, vehicle accidents account for 43,000 deaths or so per year, much higher than accidental firearms related deaths. What about a mental stability test? A health test? I could go on, the scenario's are endless.

To me, your view, which I can appreciate and you can certainly have, puts the burden of proof on the innocent in a needless manner. Sort of like, guilty until proven innocent.


Wow.
Ring-a-ding, ding bob. :beer:

[Whitey]

Wow.
Ring-a-ding, ding bob. :beer:

Translation to Engrish is................ :shrug:

[jnschwie]

nail. head. etc

[Whitey]

nail. head. etc

Dooh! :o


My bulb burns low this time of evening on a (for me) Friday night. :idea: :thumbsup:

[denverd0n]

And...Your missing my point.
No, I didn't miss your point at all. You made a specious argument. I pointed that out.

I chose to ignore your comment about how "times have changed" because I already dealt with that completely irrelevant and nonsensical issue in an earlier post.

I also chose to ignore your comment about how things will change for the simple reason that, while you may be correct, those changes that you seem to be hoping for will very definitely be to the detriment of our society.

[Jason's CJ5]

Nor does it have provisions that restrict felons from possessing firearms?

Times have changed a bit since then...I am one of the folks that think that the person carrying a concealed handgun legally should have passed a thorough background check; they must be somewhat proficient in using the firearm as well.

Wait until the laws get tougher and a standardized practical and written test are required. They will also be closing the loophole that allows a permit holder to keep renewing their permit without providing another proof of training document. Right now, Joe Schumuckatelli can get a permit and keep renewing for as long as he wishes. This will be changing in the next several years.

Not true, even under Colorado's easy system, you are required to retrain every 10 years.

[sw99]

Not true, even under Colorado's easy system, you are required to retrain every 10 years.

Wrong... You are an instructor?


(1) Within one hundred twenty days prior to expiration of a permit, the permittee may obtain a renewal form from the issuing sheriff and renew the permit by submitting to the issuing sheriff a completed renewal form, a notarized affidavit stating that the permittee remains qualified pursuant to the criteria specified in section 18-12-203 (1) (a) to (1) (g), and the required renewal fee not to exceed fifty dollars, as set by the sheriff pursuant to section 18-12-205 (5). The renewal form shall meet the requirements specified in section 18-12-205 (1) for an application. The sheriff shall verify pursuant to section 18-12-205 (4) that the permittee meets the criteria specified in section 18-12-203 (1) (a) to (1) (g) and is not a danger as described in section 18-12-203 (2) and shall either renew or deny the renewal of the permit in accordance with the provisions of section 18-12-206 (1). If the sheriff denies renewal of a permit, the permittee may seek a second review of the renewal application by the sheriff and may submit additional information for the record. The permittee may also seek judicial review as provided in section 18-12-207.

The proficiancy section is under H, which is obviously after G...

18-12-203. Criteria for obtaining a permit.
(1) Beginning May 17, 2003, except as otherwise provided in this section, a sheriff shall issue a permit to carry a concealed handgun to an applicant who:

(a) Is a legal resident of the state of Colorado. For purposes of this part 2, a person who is a member of the armed forces and is stationed pursuant to permanent duty station orders at a military installation in this state, and a member of the person's immediate family living in Colorado, shall be deemed to be a legal resident of the state of Colorado.

(b) Is twenty-one years of age or older;

(c) Is not ineligible to possess a firearm pursuant to section 18-12-108 or federal law;

(d) Has not been convicted of perjury under section 18-8-503, in relation to information provided or deliberately omitted on a permit application submitted pursuant to this part 2;

(e) (I) Does not chronically and habitually use alcoholic beverages to the extent that the applicant's normal faculties are impaired.

(II) The prohibition specified in this paragraph (e) shall not apply to an applicant who provides an affidavit, signed by a professional counselor who is licensed pursuant to article 43 of title 12, C.R.S., and specializes in alcohol addiction, stating that the applicant has been evaluated by the counselor and has been determined to be a recovering alcoholic who has refrained from using alcohol for at least three years.

(f) Is not an unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance as defined in section 18-18-102 (5). Whether an applicant is an unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance shall be determined as provided in federal law and regulations.

(g) Is not subject to:

(I) A restraining order issued pursuant to section 18-1-1001 or section 19-2-707, C.R.S., that is in effect at the time the application is submitted; or

(II) A permanent restraining order issued pursuant to article 14 of title 13, C.R.S.; or

(III) A temporary restraining order issued pursuant to article 14 of title 13, C.R.S., that is in effect at the time the application is submitted;

(h) Demonstrates competence with a handgun by submitting:

(I) Evidence of experience with a firearm through participation in organized shooting competitions or current military service;

(II) Evidence that, at the time the application is submitted, the applicant is a certified instructor;

(III) Proof of honorable discharge from a branch of the United States armed forces within the three years preceding submittal of the application;

(IV) Proof of honorable discharge from a branch of the United States armed forces that reflects pistol qualifications obtained within the ten years preceding submittal of the application;

(V) A certificate showing retirement from a Colorado law enforcement agency that reflects pistol qualifications obtained within the ten years preceding submittal of the application; or

(VI) A training certificate from a handgun training class obtained within the ten years preceding submittal of the application. The applicant shall submit the original training certificate or a photocopy thereof that includes the original signature of the class instructor. In obtaining a training certificate from a handgun training class, the applicant shall have discretion in selecting which handgun training class to complete.

(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.

(3) (a) The sheriff shall deny, revoke, or refuse to renew a permit if an applicant or a permittee fails to meet one of the criteria listed in subsection (1) of this section and may deny, revoke, or refuse to renew a permit on the grounds specified in subsection (2) of this section.

(b) Following issuance of a permit, if the issuing sheriff has a reasonable belief that a permittee no longer meets the criteria specified in subsection (1) of this section or that the permittee presents a danger as described in subsection (2) of this section, the sheriff shall suspend the permit until such time as the matter is resolved and the issuing sheriff determines that the permittee is eligible to possess a permit as provided in this section.

(c) If the sheriff suspends or revokes a permit, the sheriff shall notify the permittee in writing, stating the grounds for suspension or revocation and informing the permittee of the right to seek a second review by the sheriff, to submit additional information for the record, and to seek judicial review pursuant to section 18-12-207.

[sw99]

Don't get me wrong fellas, I'm all for citizens being able to carry concealed handguns. Let's just say that I have delt with enough idots who have no business carrying concealed handguns. I'm all for a good background investigation...

[jnschwie]

I'm all for a good background investigation...


In order to carry concealed, isn't a pre-requisite OWNING a firearm?
(yes)

And if so, don't you think the background check for BUYING it good enough?

:confused:

[sw99]

In order to carry concealed, isn't a pre-requisite OWNING a firearm?
(yes)

And if so, don't you think the background check for BUYING it good enough?

:confused:

No & No

Sorry we disagree. You would be surprised what local agency checks turn up on people. There are several instances where a person may have had several arrests that were never convictions. These never show up on a CBI Insta-check like they do when you purchace a gun. I knew a guy that threatened to beat his wifes head in with a hatchet and chased her around the yard. In court, she was such a victiom over the years, she lied and refused to assist in the case. They had no choise but to dismiss based on what evidence they had. Do you thing this shows up when you buy a gun?

[Jason's CJ5]

Wrong...

(VI) A training certificate from a handgun training class obtained within the ten years preceding submittal of the application. The applicant shall submit the original training certificate or a photocopy thereof that includes the original signature of the class instructor. In obtaining a training certificate from a handgun training class, the applicant shall have discretion in selecting which handgun training class to complete.



When I took my CCW class the instructor issued us an original certificate and two signed copies to use to get our permit and when we renew after 5 years. He also stated that after 10 years we need to re-take a class to get the new certification.

Based on the above high-lighted text it would seem to me that you would need a new training certificate after 10 years.

[sw99]

If an honest, law abiding citizen chooses to carry a concealed weapon, then you can bet that person will do it conscientiously and certainly not in a reckless manner. Those that would carry otherwise are the exception and not the rule. The honest and law upholding tend to do just that.

So, how many times have you had to retake the drivers test, not simply the eye test, but the whole drivers test to prove that you haven't forgotten how to drive?

Yet, vehicle accidents account for 43,000 deaths or so per year, much higher than accidental firearms related deaths. What about a mental stability test? A health test? I could go on, the scenario's are endless.

To me, your view, which I can appreciate and you can certainly have, puts the burden of proof on the innocent in a needless manner. Sort of like, guilty until proven innocent.


We can what if this all day long. There are a bunch of not so honest law abiding citizens out there as well.

[sw99]

When I took my CCW class the instructor issued us an original certificate and two signed copies to use to get our permit and when we renew after 5 years. He also stated that after 10 years we need to re-take a class to get the new certification.

Based on the above high-lighted text it would seem to me that you would need a new training certificate after 10 years.

Well, he was wrong. Maybe you should read the statute again.

[Jason's CJ5]

Well, he was wrong. Maybe you should read the statute again.


I just got off the phone with the Pueblo County Sheriff Dept, and you are right. After you receive your original permit, as long as you renew within the 90 day time frame there is never any additional training required.

[Yota]

No & No

Sorry we disagree. You would be surprised what local agency checks turn up on people. There are several instances where a person may have had several arrests that were never convictions. These never show up on a CBI Insta-check like they do when you purchace a gun. I knew a guy that threatened to beat his wifes head in with a hatchet and chased her around the yard. In court, she was such a victiom over the years, she lied and refused to assist in the case. They had no choise but to dismiss based on what evidence they had. Do you thing this shows up when you buy a gun?

Since Colorado is now a Shall Issue state, this would neither disqualify him from buying a gun nor from getting a CCW. If the applicant doesn't fail any of the criteria in the law, the Sheriff shall issue the permit. Same with puchasing a gun too. The gun seller never sees the background check - all they get is a yes or no. So it's not even as though the gun store guy could exercise some kind of subjective judgement when selling guns.

But in any case, one does not have to purchase a gun new from a gun shop in order to get a gun. Guns can be bought and sold legally in other ways that do not require a background check. Plus they could have acquired the weapon long ago and have since become a felon. So the 2nd background check is still not a bad idea as long as we're not pretending that it's really keeping guns out of the wrong hands - it's just keeping the wrong hands from buying new guns.

[sw99]

Since Colorado is now a Shall Issue state, this would neither disqualify him from buying a gun nor from getting a CCW. If the applicant doesn't fail any of the criteria in the law, the Sheriff shall issue the permit.


Yes, it can disqualify him from getting a permit. It falls under the portion of 18-12-203.

(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.

[jnschwie]

No & No

Sorry we disagree. You would be surprised what local agency checks turn up on people. There are several instances where a person may have had several arrests that were never convictions. These never show up on a CBI Insta-check like they do when you purchace a gun. I knew a guy that threatened to beat his wifes head in with a hatchet and chased her around the yard. In court, she was such a victiom over the years, she lied and refused to assist in the case. They had no choise but to dismiss based on what evidence they had. Do you thing this shows up when you buy a gun?

So, is the background check more thorough than the CBI Insta-check?

AND, if so can you legally deny a permit in a "shall issue" state? I know some states have specific things (Utah had a lot revolving around alcohol -but I don't remember much for CO beyond having actual convictions).



Don't ever apologize for disagreeing on opinions, though. :)

[jnschwie]

Yes, it can disqualify him from getting a permit. It falls under the portion of 18-12-203.

(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.

D'oh! You addressed this. My bad. I should've read further.



-BUT, OK, so now you can have the gun but not the permit. We're an open carry state anyway, and you can "conceal" in a vehicle without a permit.

Sheriff's discretion does zero in this case. -And, i never noticed it before, but the part you quoted (law from CO website?) sure does put a lot of subjectivity back into a condition that "shall issue" was supposed to clear up.

[sw99]

So, is the background check more thorough than the CBI Insta-check?

Yes, much more!

AND, if so can you legally deny a permit in a "shall issue" state? I know some states have specific things (Utah had a lot revolving around alcohol -but I don't remember much for CO beyond having actual convictions).

Most of the denials come from the "danger to self or others" section like I previously stated.



Don't ever apologize for disagreeing on opinions, though. :)

The apology was more for entertainment value :D It just appears that some folks here are getting a little too bent over this.




:D

[sw99]

D'oh! You addressed this. My bad. I should've read further.

No worries.



-BUT, OK, so now you can have the gun but not the permit. We're an open carry state anyway, and you can "conceal" in a vehicle without a permit.

Yup, several folks that have been denied a permit are able to own guns. That's their constitutional right...

Sheriff's discretion does zero in this case. -And, i never noticed it before, but the part you quoted (law from CO website?) sure does put a lot of subjectivity back into a condition that "shall issue" was supposed to clear up.

Subjectivity? Sure, lots...


:thumbsup:

[Scott@Rockstomper]

Sorry we disagree. You would be surprised what local agency checks turn up on people. There are several instances where a person may have had several arrests that were never convictions.

Hypothetically:

If I was suspected of felony fraud, arrested for it, charged with it, and ultimately acquitted of it (for whatever reason--that doesn't really matter) then legally, I didn't commit the felony.

Should the felony arrest be held against me, preventing me from purchasing a firearm?

Does it make any difference if it comes to light that the arresting officer's wife was cheating on him, with me, and he caught us in the act, so now there's a pattern of personal issues between him and me?

What if it comes to light that he fabricated the case against me, and that's why I got acquitted... but the felony arrest is still on my record?

While I tend to agree that a lot of things that should be, aren't prosecuted, it's an unfortunate reality of our justice system. If something isn't worth prosecuting for whatever reason, it will fall by the wayside.

Kids have been used as pawns in ugly divorces for decades--I have a friend who was accused by his ex-wife of molesting their daughter. He didn't; the daughter has said he didn't, but the ex leveled that accusation in divorce court, trying to keep him from getting any custody at all. Should he be arrested for child molestation, and then have that arrest (regardless of conviction) haunt him for the rest of his life?

[jnschwie]

Sounds like you live in a crappy county? :shrug:


I'm unsure why you would be in favor completely subjectifying freedom, though. I'm also curious what would happen if the subjectivity were challenged on the basis of the "shall issue" legislation. -Its poorly worded. My guess, though, is that people who wouldn't qualify don't exactly have the cash laying around for a lawyer.



-But who's getting bent out of shape? :confused:

[sw99]

Sounds like you live in a crappy county? :shrug:


I'm unsure why you would be in favor completely subjectifying freedom, though. I'm also curious what would happen if the subjectivity were challenged on the basis of the "shall issue" legislation. -Its poorly worded. My guess, though, is that people who wouldn't qualify don't exactly have the cash laying around for a lawyer.



-But who's getting bent out of shape? :confused:


Crappy county? Where does that come in?

What i'm in favor for is making sure people are qualified to carry concealed handguns. Twist it around and call it what you will...

The bent out of shape comment was just poking fun.

Try actually doing something about it instead of complaining about how wrong it is on the internet...

[jnschwie]

I'd call subjectivity to freedoms guaranteed by the constitution crappy. Vermont is the only state that currently respects that. Since I neither break the law, nor had even the slightest inconvenience in getting my permits, I'm not really compelled to push for change. I'm not even complaining, really. But commenting on the continuous erosion of our freedoms? Yeah... :)



Edit: Bill of rights, not constitution.

[sw99]

Hypothetically:

If I was suspected of felony fraud, arrested for it, charged with it, and ultimately acquitted of it (for whatever reason--that doesn't really matter) then legally, I didn't commit the felony.

Should the felony arrest be held against me, preventing me from purchasing a firearm?

Does it make any difference if it comes to light that the arresting officer's wife was cheating on him, with me, and he caught us in the act, so now there's a pattern of personal issues between him and me?

What if it comes to light that he fabricated the case against me, and that's why I got acquitted... but the felony arrest is still on my record?

While I tend to agree that a lot of things that should be, aren't prosecuted, it's an unfortunate reality of our justice system. If something isn't worth prosecuting for whatever reason, it will fall by the wayside.

Kids have been used as pawns in ugly divorces for decades--I have a friend who was accused by his ex-wife of molesting their daughter. He didn't; the daughter has said he didn't, but the ex leveled that accusation in divorce court, trying to keep him from getting any custody at all. Should he be arrested for child molestation, and then have that arrest (regardless of conviction) haunt him for the rest of his life?

Hypothetically, (although wrong) you would be in violtion of federal law and would not even be able to possess firearms period. That situation would sure be a bummer :D

[Scott@Rockstomper]

Hypothetically, (although wrong) you would be in violtion of federal law and would not even be able to possess firearms period. That situation would sure be a bummer :D

Willing to write off your own rights to a "bummer" ?

I've seen too many morally compromised, inept, underqualified, or flat-out crooked smalltown cops, and too many friends screwed over by psycho vindictive ex's, to be willing to put my rights on the chopping block there.

[sw99]

Willing to write off your own rights to a "bummer" ?

I've seen too many morally compromised, inept, underqualified, or flat-out crooked smalltown cops, and too many friends screwed over by psycho vindictive ex's, to be willing to put my rights on the chopping block there.

Thats too bad to hear Scott. You are correct in the fact that there serious flaws within the system. Hopefully there is a few good honest people left that work within the system.

[Whitey]

We can what if this all day long. There are a bunch of not so honest law abiding citizens out there as well.

Isn't there laws that deal with the 'not so honest' when caught? It's been that way forever, so is it any reason to curtail all responsible citizens?

It isn't a what if either, (renewal of a permit or drivers license), it is a hard fact. In that light, you would be willing to put more emphases on a firearm CCW renewal than a drivers license renewal, even though car accidents are responsible for more deaths than firearm accidental deaths?

That doesn't make sense to me. When a person hunts and buys a big game license, born after a certain year, he needs to have a hunter education course and a card to prove it. There are no live firing tests involved in getting that card. There is no renewal required either.

In fact, a person, if he is legally able to own and possess a firearm, can openly carry and shoot it without a test or license of any kind. (This is based on the person doing so with-in the confines of the law).

To me, it seems your issue is with carrying a concealed fire arm only! Why? Are there multiple and recurring issues with CCW holders that I've over looked. In other words, is there a real problem with CCW holders and their use of firearms? :shrug:

[sw99]

Isn't there laws that deal with the 'not so honest' when caught? It's been that way forever, so is it any reason to curtail all responsible citizens? Geeezz, c'mon guy... Not all these people are responsible. Is that so hard to understand? You have no idea what kind of people try to get a CCW...

It isn't a what if either, (renewal of a permit or drivers license), it is a hard fact. In that light, you would be willing to put more emphases on a firearm CCW renewal than a drivers license renewal, even though car accidents are responsible for more deaths than firearm accidental deaths?

That doesn't make sense to me. When a person hunts and buys a big game license, born after a certain year, he needs to have a hunter education course and a card to prove it. There are no live firing tests involved in getting that card. There is no renewal required either. Me either... Whats up with that?

In fact, a person, if he is legally able to own and possess a firearm, can openly carry and shoot it without a test or license of any kind. (This is based on the person doing so with-in the confines of the law).

To me, it seems your issue is with carrying a concealed fire arm only! Why? Are there multiple and recurring issues with CCW holders that I've over looked. In other words, is there a real problem with CCW holders and their use of firearms? :shrug: You would be amazed...

.

[Whitey]

Originally Posted by Whitey View Post
Isn't there laws that deal with the 'not so honest' when caught? It's been that way forever, so is it any reason to curtail all responsible citizens? Geeezz, c'mon guy... Not all these people are responsible. Is that so hard to understand? Got any facts/links for CCW problems? You have no idea what kind of people try to get a CCW...
So because they try, do they get one?

It isn't a what if either, (renewal of a permit or drivers license), it is a hard fact. In that light, you would be willing to put more emphases on a firearm CCW renewal than a drivers license renewal, even though car accidents are responsible for more deaths than firearm accidental deaths?

That doesn't make sense to me. When a person hunts and buys a big game license, born after a certain year, he needs to have a hunter education course and a card to prove it. There are no live firing tests involved in getting that card. There is no renewal required either. Me either... Whats up with that? Reasonable to me. Why put more restrictions on honest folks? Unless it is for job security as in bigger Gov.

In fact, a person, if he is legally able to own and possess a firearm, can openly carry and shoot it without a test or license of any kind. (This is based on the person doing so with-in the confines of the law).

To me, it seems your issue is with carrying a concealed fire arm only! Why? Are there multiple and recurring issues with CCW holders that I've over looked. In other words, is there a real problem with CCW holders and their use of firearms? You would be amazed... Sorry, but I don't really think there is a serious problem. If there were, I believe the left leaning median and the gun grabbers would be all over it. .















.

[Yota]

Yes, it can disqualify him from getting a permit. It falls under the portion of 18-12-203.

(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.

Yeah I know. I covered that with...

Since Colorado is now a Shall Issue state, this would neither disqualify him from buying a gun nor from getting a CCW. If the applicant doesn't fail any of the criteria in the law, the Sheriff shall issue the permit. Same with puchasing a gun too. The gun seller never sees the background check - all they get is a yes or no. So it's not even as though the gun store guy could exercise some kind of subjective judgement when selling guns.

But in any case, one does not have to purchase a gun new from a gun shop in order to get a gun. Guns can be bought and sold legally in other ways that do not require a background check. Plus they could have acquired the weapon long ago and have since become a felon. So the 2nd background check is still not a bad idea as long as we're not pretending that it's really keeping guns out of the wrong hands - it's just keeping the wrong hands from buying new guns.

Subsection 2 is one of the criteria. And it specifies two important things: reasonable and documented. I think if the sheriff denied a permit on the basis of some dismissed abuse case, the applicant would have grounds for secondary review or judicial review on the basis of reasonableness as provided in subsection 3(c):

(c) If the sheriff suspends or revokes a permit, the sheriff shall notify the permittee in writing, stating the grounds for suspension or revocation and informing the permittee of the right to seek a second review by the sheriff, to submit additional information for the record, and to seek judicial review pursuant to section 18-12-207 (http://198.187.128.12/colorado/lpext.dll?f=FifLink&t=document-frame.htm&l=jump&iid=COCODE&d=18-12-207&sid=490918e2.4989b301.0.0#JD_18-12-207).

I don't think it is reasonable for a Sheriff to essentially act as judge and jury after the fact to an abuse case that was dismissed. If there were any documented evidence of abuse, the applicant could have been tried without the testimony of the spouse.

You keep saying that you see people who have no business carrying a gun, but I think you are viewing this from a police perspective. Why should only highly-trained people be allowed to defend themselves from criminals who aren't required to have any training by definition? It's like "OK go ahead and kill me Mr. Criminal because some Sheriff thinks I'm not very smart, although I'm smart enough not to be a criminal like you there, Mr. Criminal"

Remember that these citizens will only be using their firearms in self-defense, not in police work. If they use their guns otherwise then they have crossed the line into criminal behavior and all bets are off. But being an "idiot" or "dishonest law-abiding citizen" in your opinion should not negate their constitutional right to self defense. Frankly that kind of talk smacks of elitism.

[sw99]

Yeah I know. I covered that with...



Subsection 2 is one of the criteria. And it specifies two important things: reasonable and documented. I think if the sheriff denied a permit on the basis of some dismissed abuse case, the applicant would have grounds for secondary review or judicial review on the basis of reasonableness as provided in subsection 3(c):

Yes, they could get a judicial review if they requested. Reasonable and documented are terms we can debate for ever...



I don't think it is reasonable for a Sheriff to essentially act as judge and jury after the fact to an abuse case that was dismissed. If there were any documented evidence of abuse, the applicant could have been tried without the testimony of the spouse.

keep in mind that today?s society is a little different. The Sheriff's want to make sure they are giving permits to qualified people. There a bunch of liability issues that come to mind. There are media issues and so on...

You keep saying that you see people who have no business carrying a gun, but I think you are viewing this from a police perspective. Why should only highly-trained people be allowed to defend themselves from criminals who aren't required to have any training by definition? It's like "OK go ahead and kill me Mr. Criminal because some Sheriff thinks I'm not very smart, although I'm smart enough not to be a criminal like you there, Mr. Criminal"

Not really, if you?re able to meet the standards required that hooray, carry you gun all over the place. I'm all for it! :thumbsup:

Remember that these citizens will only be using their firearms in self-defense, not in police work. If they use their guns otherwise then they have crossed the line into criminal behavior and all bets are off. But being an "idiot" or "dishonest law-abiding citizen" in your opinion should not negate their constitutional right to self defense. Frankly that kind of talk smacks of elitism.

This is getting really old now. I THINK YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO CARRY A CONCEALED HANDGUN IF YOU?RE QUALIFIED TO DO SO. It's getting humorous how twisted this getting.


.

[sw99]

Isn't there laws that deal with the 'not so honest' when caught? It's been that way forever, so is it any reason to curtail all responsible citizens? Geeezz, c'mon guy... Not all these people are responsible. Is that so hard to understand? Got any facts/links for CCW problems? You have no idea what kind of people try to get a CCW...
So because they try, do they get one?

Most times they do not. That's why there shold ba a background investiagtion. Can we try and turn this around any more?

It isn't a what if either, (renewal of a permit or drivers license), it is a hard fact. In that light, you would be willing to put more emphases on a firearm CCW renewal than a drivers license renewal, even though car accidents are responsible for more deaths than firearm accidental deaths?

This is fun one. I don't know about you but... Most people with a drivers license drive every day and their skills are continually utilized. Some of these people go through crummy CCW classes that don't even have a live fire section. Some of these same people can't even remember how to use the gun if they needed to.

That doesn't make sense to me. When a person hunts and buys a big game license, born after a certain year, he needs to have a hunter education course and a card to prove it. There are no live firing tests involved in getting that card. There is no renewal required either. Me either... Whats up with that? Reasonable to me. Why put more restrictions on honest folks? Unless it is for job security as in bigger Gov.

Obviously your opinionated about this. Do you actually do anything about it?Have you called your state reps, the governer? Hunters and people walking around downtown with guns are a bit different also. We can go into this for days also...

In fact, a person, if he is legally able to own and possess a firearm, can openly carry and shoot it without a test or license of any kind. (This is based on the person doing so with-in the confines of the law).

To me, it seems your issue is with carrying a concealed fire arm only! Why? Are there multiple and recurring issues with CCW holders that I've over looked. In other words, is there a real problem with CCW holders and their use of firearms? You would be amazed... Sorry, but I don't really think there is a serious problem. If there were, I believe the left leaning median and the gun grabbers would be all over it.

Thats fine that you think otherwise. I know this for a fact and thats part of the reason the CCW database is projected to pass as well.


.

[Whitey]

Most times they do not. That's why there shold ba a background investiagtion. Can we try and turn this around any more?
How in the fawk is this being turned around. You just said, "there should be a background investigation".

We have a background check and a through investigation! It works. There is already a shooting proficiency test.

When I first got my CCW, they visited my neighbors, I had to give them references. That is changed now, but, there is still an exhaustive background check.

Most people with a drivers license drive every day and their skills are continually utilized. Is that the reason for all the highway carnage? Some of these people go through crummy CCW classes that don't even have a live fire section. Some of these same people can't even remember how to use the gun if they needed to.

So, i'll ask again. Is there a problem? Has there been instances of a great number of CCW's misusing their firearms? Show me facts, not your assertions.
Thats fine that you think otherwise. I know this for a fact and thats part of the reason the CCW database is projected to pass as well. :shrug:


Why is there a need to change it to a continuing education requirement and who is going to determine the limits of "qualification", i.e. how often we must shoot to be "qualified", how many hits are required to prove our worth as a good shooter and so on.

Obviously your opinionated about this. Do you actually do anything about it?Have you called your state reps, the governer? Yes, I am involved with this. I have contacted and have wrote letters, e-mails and so on to all of them. Not about more restrictions for honest folks, but for less restrictive government concerning firearm.
Hunters and people walking around downtown with guns are a bit different also. We can go into this for days also...
sw99, you are the one turning things around, I never said anything about hunters being downtown.

We are talking about being qualified. A hunter is considered qualified with a hunters ed card, if he is born after a certain date. Before that date, there is no requirement.

So, since you mention downtown, why in God's name wouldn't a person want to carry a firearm there. It is where most of the crime is! To me, that is all the more reason to let people carry firearms. The CCW ledgistration that passed was needed. It is a good law.

To make it any different is leaning toward more restrictive goverment for honest citizens, (yes, there are quite a few), and easier for crimmals to operate.

[Rott Weiler]

Originally Posted by sw99
Most times they do not. That's why there shold ba a background investiagtion. Can we try and turn this around any more?


How in the fawk is this being turned around. You just said, "there should be a background investigation".

We have a background check and a through investigation! It works. There is already a shooting proficiency test.

When I first got my CCW, they visited my neighbors, I had to give them references. That is changed now, but, there is still an exhaustive background check.



Originally Posted by sw99
Most people with a drivers license drive every day and their skills are continually utilized. Is that the reason for all the highway carnage? Some of these people go through crummy CCW classes that don't even have a live fire section. Some of these same people can't even remember how to use the gun if they needed to.


So, i'll ask again. Is there a problem? Has there been instances of a great number of CCW's misusing their firearms? Show me facts, not your assertions.


Originally Posted by sw99

Thats fine that you think otherwise. I know this for a fact and thats part of the reason the CCW database is projected to pass as well.

:shrug:


Why is there a need to change it to a continuing education requirement and who is going to determine the limits of "qualification", i.e. how often we must shoot to be "qualified", how many hits are required to prove our worth as a good shooter and so on.



Originally Posted by sw99
Obviously your opinionated about this. Do you actually do anything about it?Have you called your state reps, the governer? Yes, I am involved with this. I have contacted and have wrote letters, e-mails and so on to all of them. Not about more restrictions for honest folks, but for less restrictive government concerning firearm.
Hunters and people walking around downtown with guns are a bit different also. We can go into this for days also...


sw99, you are the one turning things around, I never said anything about hunters being downtown.

We are talking about being qualified. A hunter is considered qualified with a hunters ed card, if he is born after a certain date. Before that date, there is no requirement.

So, since you mention downtown, why in God's name wouldn't a person want to carry a firearm there. It is where most of the crime is! To me, that is all the more reason to let people carry firearms. The CCW ledgistration that passed was needed. It is a good law.

To make it any different is leaning toward more restrictive goverment for honest citizens, (yes, there are quite a few), and easier for crimmals to operate.



X10

[jnschwie]

Hopefully there is a few good honest people left that work within the system.

And before you seemed to be :thumbsup: about working for a department that enjoyed marginalizing freedom. :tisk:

[sw99]

How in the fawk is this being turned around. You just said, "there should be a background investigation".
We have a background check and a through investigation! It works. There is already a shooting proficiency test.

And thats is what I was defending the entire time. Perhaps reading this entire thread again is in order for you.

When I first got my CCW, they visited my neighbors, I had to give them references. That is changed now, but, there is still an exhaustive background check.


So, i'll ask again. Is there a problem? Has there been instances of a great number of CCW's misusing their firearms? Show me facts, not your assertions.

You want facts... Put your money where your mouth is and PM me. I'll make arrangements for this.
:shrug:


Why is there a need to change it to a continuing education requirement and who is going to determine the limits of "qualification", i.e. how often we must shoot to be "qualified", how many hits are required to prove our worth as a good shooter and so on.




sw99, you are the one turning things around, I never said anything about hunters being downtown.

[b] Wrong... Just putting your argumant into perspective

We are talking about being qualified. A hunter is considered qualified with a hunters ed card, if he is born after a certain date. Before that date, there is no requirement.

So, since you mention downtown, why in God's name wouldn't a person want to carry a firearm there. It is where most of the crime is! To me, that is all the more reason to let people carry firearms. The CCW ledgistration that passed was needed. It is a good law.

I 100% agree. I carry everytime I go downtown

To make it any different is leaning toward more restrictive goverment for honest citizens, (yes, there are quite a few), and easier for crimmals to operate.

Yes there are tons of the honest citizens. Being easier for criminals to operate is something we can debate for hours.

Again, put your money where your mouth is if you really want to know and PM me for arrangements this week.


.

[sw99]

And before you seemed to be :thumbsup: about working for a department that enjoyed marginalizing freedom. :tisk:

How did you come to that conclusion?

[Jason's CJ5]

:popcorn: I am happy to see that everyone in this thread has remained civil. As long as it remains this way, I will leave this open.

[Whitey]

And thats is what I was defending the entire time. Perhaps reading this entire thread again is in order for you.
Maybe you should read it before you call out for others to reread it. Here is what you said that gives me reason to question your stance.

.....snip.......I am one of the folks that think that the person carrying a concealed handgun legally should have passed a thorough background check; they must be somewhat proficient in using the firearm as well.

Wait until the laws get tougher and a standardized practical and written test are required. They will also be closing the loophole that allows a permit holder to keep renewing their permit without providing another proof of training document. Right now, Joe Schumuckatelli can get a permit and keep renewing for as long as he wishes. This will be changing in the next several years.
Above, you seem to imply you want the CCW law to change to have more stringent requirements than now.

Don't get me wrong fellas, I'm all for citizens being able to carry concealed handguns. Let's just say that I have delt with enough idots who have no business carrying concealed handguns. I'm all for a good background investigation...
Here, you reinforce your stance for a different type of background check and say the one now isn't working because there are idiots who have CCW's.


....snip.......There are a bunch of not so honest law abiding citizens out there as well.
So, you tell me what you mean here, as obviously I can't read, or so you implied in suggesting I reread your stance.

And thats is what I was defending the entire time. Perhaps reading this entire thread again is in order for you.
Now, you say you are defending the existing background requirements. That is contray to what you said before.

Or, did I read that wrong too. Maybe I am turning it around a bit like you so pleasantly say.


This invite is for me to PM you to 'get the facts', is it not. I might add your invite sucks too, like saying to the left out kid, "you can play as long as your sit on the bench". (and that tone of writing).
You want facts... Put your money where your mouth is and PM me. I'll make arrangements for this.
One) a PM works two ways.
Two) I feel that everyone with a vested interest in this should be privy to this information, why the secrecy. You've eluded to them, so, you put your money where your mouth is.

How about saving me a trip to God knows where to pour over supposed facts that may or may not be facts and put them up here where everyone can read them. Unless this is a secret Government data base, not meant for the public, then, I'd have to ask, why would I want to see them?


Myself, so there is no misunderstanding where I stand, I think the CCW laws as they exist now in Colorado are working. There is no need to change them unless 1) it is simply for the State to get more money from the already over taxed peasants and 2) it is to make the CCW law like Vermonts.

There is no burning need to change the laws for stricter requirements, given the information mandated by law for Joe Q. Citizen to have. Which would also mean the NRA and other gun rights groups.

[Whitey]

:popcorn: I am happy to see that everyone in this thread has remained civil. As long as it remains this way, I will leave this open.

Thanks Jason, it is always a pleasure to see another side of any idea, whether or not we agree is another point. :D

[jnschwie]

How did you come to that conclusion?

Well, it doesn't take a freedom loving American to figure that one out... :rolleyes: (Whitey and Yota did a better job anyway).

Don't get me wrong fellas, I'm all for citizens being able to carry concealed handguns. Let's just say that I have delt with enough idots who have no business carrying concealed handguns. I'm all for a good background investigation...

No & No

Sorry we disagree. You would be surprised what local agency checks turn up on people. There are several instances where a person may have had several arrests that were never convictions. These never show up on a CBI Insta-check like they do when you purchace a gun. I knew a guy that threatened to beat his wifes head in with a hatchet and chased her around the yard. In court, she was such a victiom over the years, she lied and refused to assist in the case. They had no choise but to dismiss based on what evidence they had. Do you thing this shows up when you buy a gun?


D'oh! You addressed this. My bad. I should've read further.

No worries.



-BUT, OK, so now you can have the gun but not the permit. We're an open carry state anyway, and you can "conceal" in a vehicle without a permit.

Yup, several folks that have been denied a permit are able to own guns. That's their constitutional right...
Sheriff's discretion does zero in this case. -And, i never noticed it before, but the part you quoted (law from CO website?) sure does put a lot of subjectivity back into a condition that "shall issue" was supposed to clear up.

Subjectivity? Sure, lots... :thumbsup:



Yota's point is a slam dunk: This is for self defense in the gravest of dangers only. In multiple posts, you've voiced your opinion that is in favor of complete subjectivity in passing out permits. So, you'd put a person's potential safety in the hands of someone who you already admit has really no good info? (see bolded part above) :rolleyes:



I guess I missed it, so I'm going to need you to point out the part about subjectivity in the bill of rights to me.

[jnschwie]

Myself, so there is no misunderstanding where I stand, I think the CCW laws as they exist now in Colorado are working. There is no need to change them unless 1) it is simply for the State to get more money from the already over taxed peasants and 2) it is to make the CCW law like Vermonts.


I didn't think they were so bad until I read on here that at some places, Sheriffs still get to play judge and jury. -The County-based system is absurd. It should be centralized.


And concur -the CCW restrictions need to be loosened, if anything.

[sw99]

Maybe you should read it before you call out for others to reread it. Here is what you said that gives me reason to question your stance.


Above, you seem to imply you want the CCW law to change to have more stringent requirements than now.

This just comes from being involved. I am involved and attend regular meeting on these matters. Therefore, I am aware of what is going in the behind the scenes. I never once said I was wanting it to happen.


Here, you reinforce your stance for a different type of background check and say the one now isn't working because there are idiots who have CCW's.

Like I said and offered... I can show you this!



So, you tell me what you mean here, as obviously I can't read, or so you implied in suggesting I reread your stance.


Now, you say you are defending the existing background requirements. That is contray to what you said before.

Really, how?

Or, did I read that wrong too. Maybe I am turning it around a bit like you so pleasantly say.

I do believe you are.


This invite is for me to PM you to 'get the facts', is it not. I might add your invite sucks too, like saying to the left out kid, "you can play as long as your sit on the bench". (and that tone of writing).

One) a PM works two ways.
Two) I feel that everyone with a vested interest in this should be privy to this information, why the secrecy. You've eluded to them, so, you put your money where your mouth is.

How about saving me a trip to God knows where to pour over supposed facts that may or may not be facts and put them up here where everyone can read them. Unless this is a secret Government data base, not meant for the public, then, I'd have to ask, why would I want to see them?

Nothing secret, just too much stuff for me to type. Again, I offered.

You asked and I provided you with a means to an answer. Now your obviously declining.

Myself, so there is no misunderstanding where I stand, I think the CCW laws as they exist now in Colorado are working. There is no need to change them unless 1) it is simply for the State to get more money from the already over taxed peasants and 2) it is to make the CCW law like Vermonts.

Funny, thats exactly how I feel too... This is what I have defending the entire time, yet I am being made out the bad guy.

There is no burning need to change the laws for stricter requirements, given the information mandated by law for Joe Q. Citizen to have. Which would also mean the NRA and other gun rights groups.

Agreed


.

[sw99]

Oh, Whitey... Please excuse the hard to read post. My posting skills are not as honed as yours :thumbsup:

[sw99]

Well, it doesn't take a freedom loving American to figure that one out... :rolleyes: (Whitey and Yota did a better job anyway).









Yota's point is a slam dunk: This is for self defense in the gravest of dangers only. In multiple posts, you've voiced your opinion that is in favor of complete subjectivity in passing out permits. So, you'd put a person's potential safety in the hands of someone who you already admit has really no good info? (see bolded part above) :rolleyes:

Here we go again... I voiced that I am in favor of a good background check. This is being twisted again. By subjectivity, I am talking articulation. If it can be articulated that the person has a documented history of violence or such, then they fulfill the requirement of a denial, per state statute.


I guess I missed it, so I'm going to need you to point out the part about subjectivity in the bill of rights to me.




.

[Whitey]

Sw99, no body is making you out to be anything other than what you are representing yourself to be. No one has ever said you are the bad guy, so, that isn't the reason for these questions or clarifications from me or, IMO, anyone else here as far as I can tell.

I am only trying to advance the fact that the current laws re CCW are working and there isn't a need to change.

Yes, your posting is hard to follow as you just add comments to an existing post that you quote. No one can click on your post to quote it! That makes it hard to decipher to re-quote your words. I think it would help, (me at least), if you just said what you mean, straight out, in your own post. If you have to quote someone, do it, then add your statements in your post.

For the sake of clarity, here is a reconstruction of the last two, which, for me, is hard to do.

(numbers added for reference)
1And thats is what I was defending the entire time. Perhaps reading this entire thread again is in order for you.
Maybe you should read it before you call out for others to reread it. Here is what you said that gives me reason to question your stance.
2.....snip.......I am one of the folks that think that the person carrying a concealed handgun legally should have passed a thorough background check; they must be somewhat proficient in using the firearm as well.

Wait until the laws get tougher and a standardized practical and written test are required. They will also be closing the loophole that allows a permit holder to keep renewing their permit without providing another proof of training document. Right now, Joe Schumuckatelli can get a permit and keep renewing for as long as he wishes. This will be changing in the next several years.

Above, you seem to imply you want the CCW law to change to have more stringent requirements than now.
3This just comes from being involved. I am involved and attend regular meeting on these matters. Therefore, I am aware of what is going in the behind the scenes. I never once said I was wanting it to happen.

4Don't get me wrong fellas, I'm all for citizens being able to carry concealed handguns. Let's just say that I have delt with enough idots who have no business carrying concealed handguns. I'm all for a good background investigation...
Here, you reinforce your stance for a different type of background check and say the one now isn't working because there are idiots who have CCW's.
5 Like I said and offered... I can show you this!

6....snip.......There are a bunch of not so honest law abiding citizens out there as well.

So, you tell me what you mean here, as obviously I can't read, or so you implied in suggesting I reread your stance.
7And thats is what I was defending the entire time. Perhaps reading this entire thread again is in order for you.

Now, you say you are defending the existing background requirements. That is contray to what you said before.
8 Really, how?
Or, did I read that wrong too. Maybe I am turning it around a bit like you so pleasantly say.
9I do believe you are.

This invite is for me to PM you to 'get the facts', is it not. I might add your invite sucks too, like saying to the left out kid, "you can play as long as your sit on the bench". (and that tone of writing).
10You want facts... Put your money where your mouth is and PM me. I'll make arrangements for this.

One) a PM works two ways.
Two) I feel that everyone with a vested interest in this should be privy to this information, why the secrecy. You've eluded to them, so, you put your money where your mouth is.

How about saving me a trip to God knows where to pour over supposed facts that may or may not be facts and put them up here where everyone can read them. Unless this is a secret Government data base, not meant for the public, then, I'd have to ask, why would I want to see them?
11Nothing secret, just too much stuff for me to type. Again, I offered.

You asked and I provided you with a means to an answer. Now your obviously declining.

Myself, so there is no misunderstanding where I stand, I think the CCW laws as they exist now in Colorado are working. There is no need to change them unless 1) it is simply for the State to get more money from the already over taxed peasants and 2) it is to make the CCW law like Vermonts.
12Funny, thats exactly how I feel too... This is what I have defending the entire time, yet I am being made out the bad guy.

There is no burning need to change the laws for stricter requirements, given the information mandated by law for Joe Q. Citizen to have. Which would also mean the NRA and other gun rights groups.
13Agreed

Recapitulation:

In 1, 3, 7, 8, 12 & 13 you say you do not want a change in the CCW laws unless it is for more relaxed standards, like in Vermont.

In 2, 4 & 6, you say you are for stringent background investigations, proficient fire arms use, then back it up with your reasons in 3, (being involved and knowing it is needed) and 5, having facts regarding the need to change.

In 9, you say I am turning your statements around!

In 10, you want me to put my money where my mount is and then I ask you to post the information so everyone interested in this thread can see "the facts" you have.

In 11 you decline to post the facts and say you provided me with a means to an answer, on your terms I might add, and say I am the one declining.

Facts are facts, either you have them or not. If you can't type type them and reference them, reference where they came from. If you don't know where they came from, scan them in so all can see, not just me.

A) So are you saying you want change in the CCW laws? Is your stand for changes in the CCW laws relating to background investigations, firearms proficiency and renewals?

B) Or, is your stance and arguments to keep the existing laws or go to a Vermont type CCW law where any law abiding citizen can carry concealed.:o

[sw99]

Here, this is getting redundant and just plain getting old.

Let me sum up my views:

- I am for a good background. What we have works, I?m happy with it.

- There are gray areas within the training criteria. I would not be opposed to a set standard just to help streamline things though. Some classes cover it with live fire and some do not. Either way, I feel that they just need to make a decision. I would feel better knowing that granny knows how to use the gun she carries. I would hate to see her pull it out and get it taken from her in a stressful situation.

- It's funny how it was distorted but... I was just trying to let people know what is in the works for the CCW stuff. A set training standard is being perused as we speak. As is the occasional proficiency requirement. These are being discussed within the senate and the house talks. If people don't like this, they need to get involved. I will tell you that the opponents for the Senate bill 34 had WEAK arguments.

- I think it's great for people to carry; I am 100% for it. I love guns and would HATE for someone to take that right form me.

- I think we should all get together someday and blow some stuff up. I have some nice toys to bring :D

- I have proof and would love to answer any questions that you guys may have. I will not, and cannot post them on the internet. I do have my reasons for not doing this. If you really want to know get in touch with me.

- I am done with the debating on the issue...

[DanaT]

No & No

Sorry we disagree. You would be surprised what local agency checks turn up on people. There are several instances where a person may have had several arrests that were never convictions. These never show up on a CBI Insta-check like they do when you purchace a gun. I knew a guy that threatened to beat his wifes head in with a hatchet and chased her around the yard. In court, she was such a victiom over the years, she lied and refused to assist in the case. They had no choise but to dismiss based on what evidence they had. Do you thing this shows up when you buy a gun?

I think this guy should be both able to buy a gun and have a CCW.

Why? The burden of proof for a felony arrest is almost nothing. It is pretty much police officer dicretion. They will many times error on the side of caution and arrest.

Next up the DA had to either charge if he has a reasonable belief that he can obtain a conviction. This is yet a higher standard of proof than the police officer has to have to make an arrest. He can also reffer to a grand jury how has about the same burden of proof. This is just to get the criminal case into court.

The first two steps often involve over charging in hopes of getting a defendant to accept a plea deal.

Next up is court. The prosecutor must prove beyond a reasonable doubt (note it is reasonable doubt) that the defendant is guilty. This is a much higher standard of proof than #1 and #2.

I am sorry, but until the prosecutor can convict, a person should not have rights taken away.

Since CONVICTED felons cannot vote, do you also recommend that people ARRESTED for felonies should be stripped of their rights to vote?

In the case you mentioned, the prosecutor did not do his job. Look at the prosecutor for blame.

-Dana

[denverd0n]

You keep saying that you see people who have no business carrying a gun, but I think you are viewing this from a police perspective.
BINGO!!!

The quickest way possible to lose every last one of your rights is to start letting the police arbitrarily decide who can, and who cannot, exercise them.

[sw99]

I think this guy should be both able to buy a gun and have a CCW.

Why? The burden of proof for a felony arrest is almost nothing. It is pretty much police officer dicretion. They will many times error on the side of caution and arrest.

Next up the DA had to either charge if he has a reasonable belief that he can obtain a conviction. This is yet a higher standard of proof than the police officer has to have to make an arrest. He can also reffer to a grand jury how has about the same burden of proof. This is just to get the criminal case into court.

The first two steps often involve over charging in hopes of getting a defendant to accept a plea deal.

Next up is court. The prosecutor must prove beyond a reasonable doubt (note it is reasonable doubt) that the defendant is guilty. This is a much higher standard of proof than #1 and #2.

I am sorry, but until the prosecutor can convict, a person should not have rights taken away.

Since CONVICTED felons cannot vote, do you also recommend that people ARRESTED for felonies should be stripped of their rights to vote?

In the case you mentioned, the prosecutor did not do his job. Look at the prosecutor for blame.

-Dana

That was just an example. There is much more to the whole story. The same guy would beat his wife on a regular basis. There were several other documented incidents where she needed medical attention. One of them was a broken arm...

[denverd0n]

That was just an example. There is much more to the whole story. The same guy would beat his wife on a regular basis. There were several other documented incidents where she needed medical attention. One of them was a broken arm...
Doesn't matter. If the "much more" doesn't include the guy being convicted of a crime then society has no justification for restricting his rights in any way. "Innocent until proven guilty" is one of the most fundamental concepts of our jurisprudence system. We don't burn people at the stake just because they've been accused (like some societies did in the past), and it was a very conscious and deliberate choice of our founding fathers that we would NOT do that!

[jnschwie]

it was a very conscious and deliberate choice of our founding fathers that we would NOT do that!

Its amazing how much of what they wrote that we (this country) have trampled on. :(

[sw99]

Doesn't matter. If the "much more" doesn't include the guy being convicted of a crime then society has no justification for restricting his rights in any way. "Innocent until proven guilty" is one of the most fundamental concepts of our jurisprudence system. We don't burn people at the stake just because they've been accused (like some societies did in the past), and it was a very conscious and deliberate choice of our founding fathers that we would NOT do that!

Okay, whatever you say...

[denverd0n]

Okay, whatever you say...
No, it's not what I say. It's what Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson, and George Mason, and James Madison, and George Washington, and a host of other said. If you don't like their idea for how a country should work, don't complain to me about it.

[ccondrey]

I think we should all turn in our hi-capacity autoloaders in exchange for a single shot musket that takes 30 seconds to reload - because that's what our fore-fathers had when they wrote the constitution (you know George, Thomas, Ben...) Oh wait - it's hard to conceal a muzzle loader, and I'll have to carry that silly powder horn around with me, and keep the powder dry. At least we'll be ready for another possible war with the British, oh wait - prob not.

Something tells me that Ben, Tom, and George would frown upon a wife-beating, arm braking, hatchet wielding, psycho having the 'right' to carry a high-cap pistol in his back pocket. (musket maybe ;-) ) Purely speculation on my part though.

Chris Rock (I think it was him anyway) did a funny spoof on giving gangsta's muzzleloaders instead of their current arms. Pretty funny. (almost as funny as this thread)

[denverd0n]

Something tells me that Ben, Tom, and George would frown upon a wife-beating, arm braking, hatchet wielding, psycho having the 'right' to carry a high-cap pistol in his back pocket.
I think they would say that if you have proof that he is these things then you should convict him of a crime. And if you can't convict him then he should retain all of his rights. "Innocent until proven guilty." It's really not that difficult of a concept.

In truth, I don't even have to "think" what they would say. I know with absolute certainty what they would say, because they DID say it!

[jnschwie]

I think they would say that if you have proof that he is these things then you should convict him of a crime. And if you can't convict him then he should retain all of his rights. "Innocent until proven guilty." It's really not that difficult of a concept.

In truth, I don't even have to "think" what they would say. I know with absolute certainty what they would say, because they DID say it!

To take it a step further, don't forget what these men (Ben, Tom, and George) were: CRIMINALS! Plain and simple, until our independence declared and won, they were guilty of high treason. Granted they weren't caught and charged, but by the laws of their sovereign nation (England at the time) in their day, they were criminals. (Edit: For interesting insights on this from both sides, review the recent bestseller 1776) :)


Yet these men banded together, often without uniforms and almost exclusively with their OWN WEAPONS, and fought against their own government because they felt so strongly about independence. Clearly, they didn't feel as strongly about criminals having weapons as some here feel, or as others think they might have felt.

Nor did they make any mention about types of arms that they would like to except from amendment number two. You really think Ben, Tom, and George would feel that my 8 shot 1911 is ok, but your 17 shot Glock is somehow more dangerous? :rolleyes:

[Yota]

In one regard today is the same as 1776. Now as then, it is highly unlikely that there will be anyone around to save my ass when I'm attacked. So now as then, I have the right to keep and bear arms.

[jnschwie]

In one regard today is the same as 1776. Now as then, it is highly unlikely that there will be anyone around to save my ass when I'm attacked. So now as then, I have the right to keep and bear arms.

There is a lot more regards than that, not the least of which is oppressive taxation.

[ccondrey]

You really think Ben, Tom, and George would feel that my 8 shot 1911 is ok, but your 17 shot Glock is somehow more dangerous? :rolleyes:

No, I never said nor implied that. The point I was making was that the only weapons that these men had at their disposal, or could even fathom at the time, were muzzleloaders which they could fire at a rate of two maybe three times per minute. What's your rate of fire on your 1911? 3+ rounds per second?

My point was that perhaps, PERHAPS they would have been more clear with their wording had they known of the advancements in firearms to come.

This...

http://www.boulderredneck.com/blunderbuss.jpg

is far different than this:

http://www.boulderredneck.com/Kimber3.jpg

Though if comptac mad a holster for that musket... :D

[jnschwie]

But there were certainly pistols predating this era.
Accurate? Not really
Reloading any faster than the rifle you show? Not really

Concealable enough to sneak up on someone and cause serious harm?
Yeah.
You could probably get a whole bunch of them under some of those blouse-y shirts they wore. :D


But I still disagree with the idea of fathoming the further technology. Certainly you and I can picture what might be available 100 years from now. I think they wrote the language as such to allow for advances.

[ccondrey]

In one regard today is the same as 1776. Now as then, it is highly unlikely that there will be anyone around to save my ass when I'm attacked. So now as then, I have the right to keep and bear arms.

"Amendment II:
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. "

It looks to me like they were trying to ensure that a well armed militia was on hand, not the individual protection of each citizen.

[jnschwie]

The right of the people?

Sounds like "we the people"

Even if you wish to interpret it as that, how would you define a militia? A citizens paramilitary. Don't expect the police to issue your militia its weapons.

[cheftyler]

No one has mentioned this: the "bad" guys of the day carried muzzle loaders, the bad guys today don't (and bad guys will always find a way to get ahold of the weapons of the day so arguing that if they hadn't put the 2nd amendment in there we wouldn't have bad guys with guns is total BS) they have pretty much the same weapons that we have.

Food for thought.

[Whitey]

Advance that same argument, (muzzle loader to todays small arms), against the first amendment and what would you have.

TV versus ?? camp fires?
Radio versus ?? saloon talk passed around?
Phone versus ?? carrier pigeon? smoke signals?
High speed printing, mass distribution, internet versus ?? what, quilt pens?

I think we all get the picture.

To argure that they didn't have the weapons of today and would have never allowed such is ludicrous and pure specualation, same as the first amendment being limited to a single writing tablet and quill pen. Remember, the pen is mightier than the sword!

[Yota]

"Amendment II:
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. "

It looks to me like they were trying to ensure that a well armed militia was on hand, not the individual protection of each citizen.

Yeah that militia part is where a lot of people stop reading and doze off. But...


Militias were then and are now made up of private citizens using their own private weapons. Militia has nothing whatever to do with the uniformed military.
There was no such thing as the National Guard back then, but if "militia" had meant the uniformed military (the role and leadership of which is clearly defined elsewhere), they would have said so.
It would not be necessary to specify that the Army should be allowed to keep and bear arms? I mean duh? The word "arm" is right there in the name.
It says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Every other place in the Constitution that refers to the people or similar has been construed to confer individual rights. The same is true of the 2nd amendment - it confers individual rights.
The purpose of the comment about "necessary to the security of a free state" can be seen for what it is when viewed in historical context. They wanted the well-armed militia (the armed citizens) to be a final check against tyranny of the state (the very thing they had just defeated in the War). Tyranny of the kind they had experienced could only happen when the people were unarmed and defenseless.
The framers knew that whatever firearms a citizen might have, the criminal or invading elements would possess at least equal, and often greater, firepower.
They purposefully didn't specify anything about advances in weaponry. The Constitution was a set of overarching principles, not mundane detailed laws. It was a framework that defined and, more importantly, specifically limited the powers of government. Because the Constitution leaves to the states any power not granted to the fed (which has been turned on its ear), the states have been left with the power to regulate firearms. But they must stay within the confines of the Constitution at the same time. In my opinion, states and the fed have gone too far in many cases in restricting the right of the people to keep and bear arms.The second amendment is actually very clearly written.

[jnschwie]

That there is one good looking Kimber. :D

[denverd0n]

The second amendment is actually very clearly written.
Which, of course, is why there was absolutely no dispute about its meaning until almost 150 years after it was written. And, more importantly, if it is unclear, or in need of revision because times have changed, then Article V of the Constitution very clearly spells out how to change it. Simply choosing to ignore it, or pretending that it doesn't mean what it says, is NOT an option!

[denverd0n]

They purposefully didn't specify anything about advances in weaponry.
What's more, at the time the Second Amendment was ratified, private citizens were allowed to own and use weapons that were every bit the equal of the best that the military had--including cannons.

Beyond that, of course is the utterly ridiculous notion that the founding fathers did not say exactly and precisely what they meant. These men were among the most intelligent and literate men of their day. To think that they somehow couldn't imagine future progress, or couldn't be as clear as they wanted to be, is to suggest that they were a bunch of short-sighted, semi-literate boobs who just sort of stumbled into writing the Constitution.

Yeah, like that's a real persuasive argument!

[Yota]

Beyond that, of course is the utterly ridiculous notion that the founding fathers did not say exactly and precisely what they meant. These men were among the most intelligent and literate men of their day. To think that they somehow couldn't imagine future progress, or couldn't be as clear as they wanted to be, is to suggest that they were a bunch of short-sighted, semi-literate boobs who just sort of stumbled into writing the Constitution.

Yeah, like that's a real persuasive argument!

Great point!

And if one buys that then one must also call into question the entire constitution - even the parts most beloved by gun haters.

[DanaT]

"Amendment II:
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. "

It looks to me like they were trying to ensure that a well armed militia was on hand, not the individual protection of each citizen.


Amedment I:

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


It sound like that its only the right of society, hence the plural use of people instead of the singular term person, to have free speech and not an individual right of each citizen. Otherwise they would have written "person". I follow your logic well don't I?

-Dana

[DanaT]

Something tells me that Ben, Tom, and George would frown upon a wife-beating, arm braking, hatchet wielding, psycho having the 'right' to carry a high-cap pistol in his back pocket. (musket maybe ;-) ) Purely speculation on my part though.

Didn't Tom own slaves? Just because something was normal and Tom wouldn't approve of the pyscho weilding a hicap pistol but should be allowed to carry a musket doesn't mean that values don't change over time. So are you saying that since Tom owned slaves that people now should be able to.

When judging history and today, you must do it from the perspective of the time history was made.

-Dana

[cheftyler]

Didn't Tom own slaves? Just because something was normal and Tom wouldn't approve of the pyscho weilding a hicap pistol but should be allowed to carry a musket doesn't mean that values don't change over time. So are you saying that since Tom owned slaves that people now should be able to.

When judging history and today, you must do it from the perspective of the time history was made.

-Dana

Slavery was abolished through the proper procedures. The "rights" of slave owners to own the slaves were not just ignored (unless all the history I studied in HS and college was wrong).

[DanaT]

Slavery was abolished through the proper procedures. The "rights" of slave owners to own the slaves were not just ignored (unless all the history I studied in HS and college was wrong).

Depends upon the point of view. There was a little succession over this issue(and a few others). In fact, about half the states wanted to leave the union and they forcibly made to stay in the union. Then, after the war (or after the war was lost), General Sherman did a good job of "protecting" the rights of the citizens of the states that suceeded right after he burning Atlanta to the ground. Actually his march to the sea he detroyed everything in his way.

I would bet if you asked the people from the Confederacy that were affected by the civil war, they wouldn't agre that their "rights" were not changed by proper procedures, but instead changed by the sword in war that has caused the most bloodshed by americans.

As I said, history is judged based upon point of view, and one cannot always apply modern values to historical events.

Wow. Has this been a thread hijack or what?

-Dana

[DanaT]

What's more, at the time the Second Amendment was ratified, private citizens were allowed to own and use weapons that were every bit the equal of the best that the military had--including cannons.

Beyond that, of course is the utterly ridiculous notion that the founding fathers did not say exactly and precisely what they meant. These men were among the most intelligent and literate men of their day. To think that they somehow couldn't imagine future progress, or couldn't be as clear as they wanted to be, is to suggest that they were a bunch of short-sighted, semi-literate boobs who just sort of stumbled into writing the Constitution.

Yeah, like that's a real persuasive argument!

So, here is a little history lesson. The "shot heard around the world" was fired due to the British being upset about a missing CANNON and wanting to sieze the Americans gun powder supply. Maybe some of our US history scholars should look at what started the war and remember is started because the British thought that CITIZENS should not be allowed to have military weaponry. But how I forget. Cannons used against armies in 1776 (loaded with a bunch of scrapnel and exploding cannon balls) were in no way as dangerous as a hi-cap pistol. I mean a single hi-cap pistol should be able to pin an army unit of 300 soildiers armed with black powder rifles.

Why is that people seem to forget the history of this country? Maybe if the schools were less busy teaching socialist values and more busy teaching actual school sujects, we wouldn't have this confusion.

-Dana

[Yota]

So, here is a little history lesson. The "shot heard around the world" was fired due to the British being upset about a missing CANNON and wanting to sieze the Americans gun powder supply. Maybe some of our US history scholars should look at what started the war and remember is started because the British thought that CITIZENS should not be allowed to have military weaponry. But how I forget. Cannons used against armies in 1776 (loaded with a bunch of scrapnel and exploding cannon balls) were in no way as dangerous as a hi-cap pistol. I mean a single hi-cap pistol should be able to pin an army unit of 300 soildiers armed with black powder rifles.

Why is that people seem to forget the history of this country? Maybe if the schools were less busy teaching socialist values and more busy teaching actual school sujects, we wouldn't have this confusion.

-Dana

I don't think he forgot the history of this country and I don't get your point.

They didn't have hi-cap pistols in those days, but if they had, the military would have had them too -- as they do today.

What was your point?

[denverd0n]

What was your point?
I don't want to speak for others, but I think his point was that private citizens had cannons back then and a cannon--even one driven by black powder--is a heck of a lot more destructive than even a modern semi-auto pistol.

But I could be wrong.

Either way, to suggest that somehow the founding fathers were a bunch of brainless goofs who never imagined that technology might progress is pretty absurd.

[DanaT]

I don't want to speak for others, but I think his point was that private citizens had cannons back then and a cannon--even one driven by black powder--is a heck of a lot more destructive than even a modern semi-auto pistol.

But I could be wrong.

Either way, to suggest that somehow the founding fathers were a bunch of brainless goofs who never imagined that technology might progress is pretty absurd.

That was exactly my point. And a war even started when the British military tried to take military weapons away from civilians. Even weapons that were mpre dangerous than current semi-auto pistols. So, yes, the founding fathers believed that civilains should be able to have firepower equal to that of the military.

In fact, in the Declaration of Independance, here was one of the charges against the last King of America, King George.

"He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power"

So, yes the founding father believed wholehjeartedly that the military should not have superior weaponry to the civilians.

To back this up even more, they Declaration of Independance, which preceeded the Constitution, want to ensure that civilians had a method to provide for their future security to throw off oppressive governments.

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

The founding father, I believe would not only have wanted every citizen (now we can argue who they thought citizens were) should not only carry a hi-capp pistol, but should have an M60 at their house....

-Dana

[denverd0n]

"He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power"

So, yes the founding father believed wholehjeartedly that the military should not have superior weaponry to the civilians.
Oh, geez. Do I even want to say this? Kind of a tangent, but...

I don't really think that's what that line means. I do believe they intended civilians to be able to own and keep weapons every bit as modern as anything the military has, but...

I think the line you quote refers more to the fact that they believed the military should ultimately answer to civilian authorities. That's why the Commander in Chief is an elected civilian--the president. And that's why the military's budget is entirely controlled by elected civilians--the congress. The military is always, thereby, under control of civil power and cannot act independently.

Of course, the end result of having an armed populace is that the military is always subordinate in power to the mass of citizens. There will always be hundreds of civilians out there for every member of the military, and if those civilians are armed then there really is nothing the military can do to forcibly suppress the whole of the people. In that way, your interpretation is certainly true and accurate.

I just don't think that one particular line you quoted really meant that specifically.

[Yota]

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

The founding father, I believe would not only have wanted every citizen (now we can argue who they thought citizens were) should not only carry a hi-capp pistol, but should have an M60 at their house....

-Dana

Agree. They wanted the people to hold the trump card against usurpations of power. They diffused all the political power so that no one person or entity could control it all or unilaterally change the rules. But what happens if the military is defeated? What happens if, God forbid, politics failed and someone made a successful coup d'etat? This was entirely conceivable in their day and is conceivable today. The founding brothers knew very well that tyrants can only oppress an unarmed populace (as King George learned the hard way). And that was the birth of the 2nd amendment.