Two Colorado legislators, Jared Wright (R-Fruita) and Chris Holbert (R-Parker) have introduced HB1041. The measure would remove the requirement to obtain a permit from the state in order to possess concealed weapons. The same restrictions that now apply to concealed carry permit holders would also apply to people who would be eligible for the permit. The permit system would be retained for those who want a permit for purposes of reciprocity with other states.
Representative Wright said that a permit shouldn’t be required to exercise a Constitutional right. From gjsentinel.com:
“This is in essence allowing law-abiding citizens to carry a concealed handgun without being subjected to criminal laws,” Wright said. “Now let me tell you what this bill does not do. This bill does not authorize the carrying of concealed handguns by felons, the mentally ill, juveniles or anyone otherwise prohibited from possessing handguns under state or federal law.”
The reporting by the gjsentinal.com seems a bit confused. They write:
The measure also wouldn’t do away with the concealed-carry permit system in case someone needs one to carry a weapon out of state. All other states that permit the practice honor concealed-carry, but only with a state permit.
But immediately following, they add this:
Only five states — Wyoming, Arizona, Arkansas, Alaska and Vermont — don’t require permits.
If five states do not require a permit, then the statement “All other states that permit the practice honor concealed-carry, but only with a state permit.” is false. It’s a mistake that can be made by anyone who is not familiar with firearms law. Anyone like your average dead tree daily reporter.
©2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Gun Watch
Constitutional carry is the law of the land, regardless of your zip code. The struggle continues.
Your statement is 100% correct.
You know, rather than wasting time and effort fighting 1000s of local and state governments, why don’t we just go to the law enforcement officers in those areas and rattle their chains? Politicians always have and always will enact laws which violate the constitution … and those laws are irrelevant if no one will enforce them.
Even if you could get local law enforcement to allow it, I’m guessing the Feds would butt in and start throwing people in federal prison for “unlicensed” carry.
Nope. Waaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyy out of their jurisdiction.
Your definition of law is much less practical than mine.
What’s impracticle about living by the constitution?
What’s impractical? Struggling against more than one hundred years of questionable case law, the bureaucracy which supports it, and the millions of public school graduates who have absolutely no idea what the Constitution is about, much less any idea about the sacrifices made by Americans since the days of the Revolution to preserve it.
Not that you’re wrong, though. The right way is usually not the easy way.
I’m open to alternative suggesstions. Except giving up.
What we need is for the public to learn again what it means to be American.
http://archive.lewrockwell.com/orig4/ellis1.html
Read down this page a ways, and you find an account of a conversation between Congressman Davy Crockett and a farmer named Bunce. Who among the regular folks in this country today would ask an elected representative in normal conversation a question like “Well, Colonel, where do you find in the Constitution any authority to give away the public money in charity?”
That makes a lot more sense when you read the conversation leading up to it, I promise, but the point remains. Aside from perhaps a close circle of friends for each of us, how many people have actually learned anything about the Constitution, about the principles on which it was based, or care at all about our nation as not just a government, but as a people, living by those principles?
So for me, the answer is that this fight will be won in the same manner it was almost lost, by education. I know I’m not alone in thinking the progressive movement seized control of the public schools and the universities back in the 60’s and 70’s, and the efforts to tear down the traditions that bind us together have not stopped since. Whether by taking back the schools or by starting a concerted effort to teach our children independent of the indoctrination our tax dollars provide, our best chance to win is to spread the truth to the next generation.
Hasdrubal, I do not disagree. The Federal Department of Education was formed about 1980. I’m on record as saying that agency needs to go. Return control of the schools to the communites. It’s a start.
They key word is “Permit”. Does an unalienable right require a permit? Nope. Does a criminal still carry without a permit, you bet they do. Why should law abiding people have to jump through hoops while a criminal just stuffs it in his pants and go.
“t’s a mistake that can be made by anyone who is not familiar with firearms law. Anyone like your average ultra liberal utopian mother living in a gated community” fixed it for ya
Or any rich family in New Jersey
Given that both houses of the Colorado legislature and the governorship are in the hands of the Democrats, the chances of this becoming law are slim, to say the least.
I just hope it makes a splash in the media as it is sent to die in a committee. CO I think is a bigger bellwether for the rest of the country than CA is these days. Shame that liberal policy ruined CA and then liberals moved to CO and imported their terrible policies.
The best you can hope for is some media attention. Nice idea, but it smacks of political grandstanding. Are these two up for re-election? My Magic 8-ball says yes. This way they can go to their constituents and say “See? We tried.”
Faced with political and legislative opposition to our natural, civil and Constitutionally protected RKBA that seems at times insurmountable, every possible chance at political grandstanding on this issue should be grabbed and exploited to the fullest, regardless of the politician’s supposed ulterior re-election motive.
This goes for open carry demonstrations as well. Shove it in their faces! We will not prevail by being shrinking violets.
I think you misread this. Seems clear to me that the writer refers only to states that require a permit for reciprocity.
Yeah, the state thats been passing draconian firearm laws and driving firearm accessory manufacturers is going to pass constitutional carry.
Thatd be something wouldnt it
Constitutional Carry inn Colorado is about as likely as some fey, pencil-necked brewpub operator from Pennsylvania becoming governor of The Centennial State.
Oh, wait . . . .
I would love to see it pass … although I don’t see it passing.
It’s that time of the election cycle when we see all the bills that have no chance of passing…
sounds like what they did out here in AZ, and its worked out fine.
Won’t pooperscooper just veto it? Setting yourself up for a fall doesn’t seem productive, Randy
What major objective worth achieving was ever reached on the first try? If ease and immediacy are the new benchmarks for goal selection, then we’ve really let our standards slide.
Absolutely correct. The low hanging fruit has been picked long ago. It’s now time for focus and persistence on the AI’s part.
From our current position in Colorado there is not a long way to fall. I think of it more as building just one small step upwards from the anti-2A pit.
Even if it fails (as it undoubtedly will), it proves that we have not gone away and have not given up. That cannot be ignored.
‘Tis only a pipe dream ’til Chickenhumper and his filth in the legislature are eventually voted out of office, and that just may yet happen considering public sentiment was strong enough to evict two Nanny Loonbergian sock-puppets and force a third to resign.
If we don’t see it by the end this decade, then certainly in the next.
Good.
And for the naysayers: It took more than one go at it here in Wyoming, too.
“If five states do not require a permit, then the statement ‘All other states that permit the practice honor concealed-carry, but only with a state permit.’” is false. It’s a mistake that can be made by anyone who is not familiar with firearms law. Anyone like your average dead tree daily reporter.” Or…….by Dean Weingarten……..
There are many wrinkles in firearms laws. Licensure is a different animal from manner of carry. You can have open carry, but only with a license. You can have permitless carry, but it can only be concealed. A state may allow open carry, but might restrict it in some establishments while simultaneously allowing lawful concealed carry in those same establishments. It all depends on the details of that particular state’s laws.
Moreover, and to the point of Weingarten’s jab, just because a given state allows permitless carry, aka “Constitutional carry”, that doesn’t necessarily mean it applies to everyone. I didn’t look up the details on all five of the states mentioned in the article. However, in the case of Wyoming, permitless carry only applies to Wyoming residents. If you are not a Wyoming resident, you may still open carry in Wyoming, but only if you have a valid out of state license to carry concealed. That’s the sort of state-by-state idiosyncrasy that this bill’s authors address and the original article’s writer refers to.
Why Mr. Weingarten felt it necessary to take a senseless swipe at the journalist for an innocent, as opposed to reckless, error, which turned out not to be an error at all. is puzzling.
Why you would take a senseless swipe at Mr. Weingarten is even more puzzling.
I have to admit I thought Mr. Weingarten was unduly insulting here; if there is one thing I’ve learned since I started dealing with long-distance hole punches, gun laws are confusing to the uninitiated, and there are so many variations when crossing some state lines that will likely confuse the hell out of anyone, because some things forbidden on one side of the line are legal on the other, and vice versa–something that makes no damn difference in one state makes all the difference in the world in another. And both sides think of their situation as “normal” even though not ideal.
And I have heard plenty of absolutely wrong information from POTG as well (such as, recently, an assertion from a guy behind the counter at a range that a Colorado CHP was not valid in Denver–bullshit; what’s not legal in Denver is open carry; there is state preemption on concealed carry).
I give the reporter that Weingarten chose not just to correct, but to bash, kudos for pointing out that there are other states that are already doing what is being proposed rather than taking the “ARE THOSE NRA ZOMBIES OUT OF THEIR FREAKING MINDS?!?!?!” tack.
Why would that puzzle you? I get that it was a rhetorical statement. Just another liberal wuss, attempting to divert the discussion into a downward spiral.
Heh… constitutional carry in a state that has a pseudo assault weapons ban.
There is no “pseudo assault weapons ban” in Colorado. There IS a ban on magazines with capacities over 15 (and 8 if it’s a shotgun). But I, here in Colorado, can walk into the LGS and buy all the AR-15s, semi-auto HK-91 clones, FALs, M1As, .50 BMGs, AKs, SKS’s, etc. that I want. so long as my money and their stock holds out. Full auto is also perfectly legal here (once you jump through the federal hoops).
By the way, since there is no meaningful definition of “assault weapon” what on earth would a “pseudo assault weapon” be? (did you perchance mean “assault rifle”? If so, then “pseudo assault rifle” makes perfect sense–because assault rifles are select fire and this is all semi-auto stuff they like to try to ban.)
All that having been said, this bill is of course an attempt by the Republican party to force the Democrats to make more anti-gun noises before an election. The Democrats, as of the last time I looked, have introduced NO new gun-related legislation this year; a far cry from last year. They KNOW this issue has given them a sucking chest wound. Not that they are trying to make amends for what they did last year by, you know, f*cking repealing it.
SteveInCO – The prohibition is on purchasing, not possessing 15+ rd mags. Any that you have prior to the cutoff date are legal to possess and use.
Now, just how do they figure out which are legal and and which are not? Your word against theirs, I guess; unless you’re set up for a sting…
Yes, thanks for clarifying that–I knew it but didn’t make it clear, probably because I was fixated on the concept of a “ban” in my reply. Old ones are grandfathered. (My apologies for any confusion I may have caused.)
And as you point out they would have a hard time proving it, so long as you kept your mouth shut. And *most* LEOs here wouldn’t care, unless you’ve done something else to annoy them.
The prohibition is on purchasing, not possessing 15+ rd mags
According to the statute (C.R.S. 18-12-302), “a person who sells, transfers, or possesses a large-capacity magazine commits a class 2 misdemeanor”.
There are exceptions, of course. You can possess the magazine if you owned it on 01 July 2013 (and maintain “continuous possession”). You can possess, sell, and transfer if you’re a manufacturer or a licensed gun dealer selling to a government agency or an out-of-state person. Etc.
If I drive to Wyoming or Kansas and buy a 30-round PMAG this afternoon, I commit no crime until I bring it back to Colorado with me. As soon as I enter CO, I commit the crime of “possession of a large-capacity magazine”, where none of the exceptions apply.
Of course, the prohibition on “possession” is essentially unenforceable – all I have to do is “assert” that I owned it on 01 July 2013 and the burden of proof is on the state to refute the assertion. Maybe that’s what you meant by “the prohibition is on purchasing, not possessing”?
they would have a hard time proving it, so long as you kept your mouth shut
I don’t think that works. According to the text of the statute, in order for the exception (“grandfathering”) to apply, you have to “assert” that it does. If you keep your mouth shut, you haven’t made that assertion, and there’s nothing for the prosecution to refute. All they have to prove is that you were in possession of a large-capacity magazine.
The only way the “mag ban” is going to get enforced is by a pro-2a prosecutor as a test case. The City of Denver didn’t even enforce their own 20r mag ban. You could still buy openly displayed 30r mags in any number of LGS’s within Denver’s city limits. You can still buy 30r mags in Colorado, they just come disassembled in zip-lock bags and are labeled as “Magazine Repair Kits”.
I’d love to know how a push for “Constitutional Carry” -*-now-*- is going to help pro-2A candidates take back the state House, Senate and/or Governor’s mansion in 2014. This does sound more like political grandstanding for the primaries than anything.
Finally some common sense gun reform.
Indeed.
For some reason, though, the bill’s authors chose to, rather than repealing the ban on concealed carry, that has an exception for permit holders, add ANOTHER exception for anyone who is legal to possess a firearm. There must be an unwritten rule that requires any change to the law to add to the thickness of the book the law is printed in.
I *am* glad that the permit system remains in place, because of reciprocity issues.
I thought the situation in Arkansas regarding whether the law they passed last year implied Consitutional carry was not clear-cut. Is it now an accepted fact that Arkansas has Constitutional carry?
The law is pretty clear cut. Whether the local authorities accept the law is not so clear cut.
And in related news: http://www.gjsentinel.com/breaking/articles/castle-rock-to-allow-open-carry-of-guns
I do not need a licence to exercise any of my rights, except for my second amendment rights! Why is this assumed to be acceptable? And, don’t reply with driving. Privilege, not a right.
Comments are closed.