Colorado's newest & "improved" CCW bill

[labgrade]

Go here & then pick the sequentials for HB 1410 (sorry, but a direct link doesn't seem to work).

HB1410 is the "new & improved" version of SB60 which was shot down in an earlier Senate committee ('cause it sucked).

HB 1410 is essentially the same thing.

Both the Repubs & Democrats are frantic to get anything at all passed so they can all appear pro-gun for the upcoming election cycle.

Just say no.

BTW, HB1242, the only CCW worth its name has passed its house committee & is languishing due to inattention.

 

[labgrade]

BTW, didn't post the bill's text as it's 26 pages long.

The antis (CO Momiies) hate this bill because:

"Senator Stan Matsunaka and Senator Bob Hagedorn
BETRAY their supporters and compromise their principles.


Today HB1410 was introduced.

HB1410: Concealed Handgun Bill
Sponsors: Lois Tochtrop (D-Thornton)
Ken Chlouber (R-LEADVILLE)

Despite the fact that the Senate Democratic Caucus was
opposed to this action, there were six Democrats who
joined with a number of Republicans in sponsoring this
bill:
Senate President Stan Matsunaka (D-Loveland)
Sen. Bob Hagedorn (D-Aurora)
Sen. Jim Isgar (D-Hesperus) (SW corner of the state)
Sen. Alice Nichol (D-Adams County)
Rep. Abel Tapia (D-Pueblo)
Rep. Carl Miller (D-must be in the water LEADVILLE)

Surprising entry in the Republican column of sponsors:
Rep. Don Lee (R-Littleton).
We've noted before, but are continually astonished that
Rep. Lee seems totally uncomprehending of the
connection of guns to the Columbine tragedy.

This bill is almost the same bill as SB60, which was killed
earlier this session. It is virtually an NRA wishlist of
provisions. The sponsors will talk about it as a
compromise, but when one looks at the bill language,
the only compromise to be found is in the principles
of a number of the aforementioned Democrats.

BETRAYAL 1: Senator Stan Matsunaka
Senator Matsunaka is President of the Senate ONLY
because the Senate turned Democratic for the first time
in 40 years. Colorado Ceasefire (then Colorado GAP)
worked to see that happen by targeting specific senate
races where the gun violence issue had resonance.
It was a pivotal and winning issue in at least 4 senate
races. In a spectacular display of arrogance towards
those who devoted hours upon hours of their time
and coughed-up hard-won dollars, Matsunaka has
instead cooked up a deal with the NRA, and put
forward their near-dream bill.

In January of 2001 and 2002, Matsunaka met with
representatives of the gun safety community and
promised that ALL gun bills would be assigned to
the SENATE JUDICIARY committee. We wait
to see whether he chooses to break that vow.

BETRAYAL 2: Senator Bob Hagedorn
As sponsor of this bill, Sen. Hagedorn has broken
a vow he made in a face-to-face meeting in August
of 2000. In that meeting, Hagedorn agreed that
he would not support a "shall issue" concealed
weapons bill with provisions such as those in
HB1410. Upon his agreeing with us, his exact
words were: "My word is my bond."

After reaching that agreement, Colorado Ceasefire
(at that time, Colorado GAP) elected to endorse
Hagedorn, and committed more resources to his
election than to any other race in the state: nearly
maxing out the contribution, making personal
contributions, and sending a costly direct mailer to
his district.

ANOTHER DISAPPOINTMENT: We were not surprised
to see the pro-gun Democrats on the list: Tochtrop,
Miller, Isgar and Nichol are frequently in the "usual
suspects" list. What was especially disturbing was
to see Rep. Abel Tapia toss his hat in with this crowd.
Tapia has an excellent pro-gun safety voting record.


We will be disseminating more information later as to
specific actions you can take.

The best one at the moment is to call Sen. Matsunaka
and request that he send bill to Judiciary committee
when it reaches the Senate. You can also express
your disappointment in the choices made by Hagedorn
and Tapia.

Sen. Stan Matsunaka: stansenate@aol.com 303-866-4853
(if you live in Larimer, Weld or any of the Eastern Plains
counties be sure to let Sen. Matsunaka know your
address).
Sen. Bob Hagedorn: bobhagedorn@qwest.net 303-866-4879
(if you live in Arapahoe or Adams County, let him know).
Rep. Abel Tapia: atapia@qwest.net 303-866-2968
(if you live in the Pueblo area, let him know)

Those outraged that the representative of the district that
contains Columbine High School sponsored this bill
should call:
Rep. Don Lee repdonlee@qwest.net 303-866-2939

Boulder County voters may express perplexity that
Republican Rep. Bill Swenson signed on as a sponsor
of the bill.
Rep. Bill Swenson: billswenson@qwest.net 303-866-2920

PLEASE FORWARD THIS NOTE TO FRIENDS THROUGHOUT
THE STATE, especially in Larimer, Weld and the Eastern
counties."

& stay tuned ....

 

[labgrade]

... and the pro-freedom folk hate it because:

"My name is (deleted - off an e-mail list), I am a lawyer. This bill provides that if a permit application is denied the Sheriff shall notify the applicant "stating the grounds for denial" and informing the applicant of the right to appeal under Rule 106 of the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure. The problem with that is that the Sheriff is not required to state the FACTS constituting the grounds for denial so some sheriffs will simply state the grounds for denial as "it is believed that the applicant will present a danger to himself (herself) and/or others." If that is all you get and you want to appeal under Rule 106 you will find two problems.

First, you will have to hire a lawyer and spend tons of money. Second, review under Rule 106 is "limited to a determination of whether the [sheriff] has exceeded its jurisdiction or abused its discretion, based on the evidence in the record before the [sheriff]." Read those words again, "based on the evidence in
the record before the [sheriff]." The only thing that will be in the
record will be the self-serving document relied upon by the sheriff, and you are not going to be allowed to submit any other evidence nor cross examine the person who supplied the deleterious information to the sheriff. Although the sheriff has the burden of proof, the sheriff will always meet his burden of proof because the only evidence before the court will be the evidence that the sheriff submits to the court.

Please let me say this again. Under Rule 106 of the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure, YOU WILL NOT BE ALLOWED TO SUBMIT NEW EVIDENCE OR CROSS EXAMINE THE WITNESSES RELIED UPON BY THE SHERIFF! That is something you were supposed to do at the agency level, before you filed a lawsuit seeking Rule 106 review. But you never get to do that with the sheriff because he is not required to give you an evidentiary hearing "on the record." Thus, when you go to court for review under Rule 106 THERE IS NO RECORD for the court to review except what the sheriff submits. This must the ultimate CATCH-22. Appeals of denials under this bill will, for all intents and purposes, be non-existent.

Doesn't that mean this is a MAY issue law and not a SHALL issue law? It seems to me that unless a meaningful appeal process is put into this bill it does nothing more that prevent sheriffs from issuing permits outside of their jurisdiction, but the issuance of permits is still entirely discretionary with each sheriff or chief of police. What is to stop the Denver chief of police from saying in every case that he finds you to be a danger to yourself and/or others and deny your application?"

'Course, again, PPFC & most from CSSA are all behind this because it gives us "something."

We already have something folks.

Only thing we need to change in 18-12-105* is "may" to "shall" (issue).

It doesn't take 26 pages of complete nonsense to do that.

I suggest y'all do as The Mommies ask = call these folk & get 'em to do the right thing. 'Course, our's & theirs is diametrically opposed.

 

[labgrade]

This whole mess causing quite the stir .... good. But, they should all just kill this crap & go home, except Matsunaka wants to appear "pro-gun" (he's running for a fed-level House seat & y'all'll get to eat his $#!+ if he makes it, BTW) by "supporting" this (not to mention our illustrious Backdoor Bill - The Guv), & the true "hard-core" gunnies don't want anything to do with it. Mommies are running scared because it's a hot button & "something will happen" & The state NRA affiliate-types are all over it 'cause we'd "get something."

BTW, some of the worse things to happen to actual pro-gunny-types in CO during the past coupla years was during a Repub-controlled House, Senate & The Guv. Go figure, huh?

Ahhh - politics.

Denver Post article

"Push for concealed-gun bill divides Dems

Some say Matsunaka's stance to hurt party

By Julia C. Martinez
Denver Post Capitol Bureau

Tuesday, March 26, 2002 - Senate President Stan Matsunaka's support for a concealed-weapons compromise is splitting Democrats and could cost the party control of the Senate, some lawmakers predicted Monday.

Emotions were running high over Matsunaka's efforts to push through a compromise on concealed-handgun permits this session in order, many said, to solidify a 4th Congressional District win in November.

"I'm concerned that the Democrats could lose the Senate over this," said Sen. Rob Hernandez, a Denver Democrat opposed to the latest compromise.

Some Democrats were so upset that they began discussing a possible effort to dump Matsunaka as Senate president, though the participating legislators would not speak on the record.

"It's causing a lot of turmoil," said Democratic Caucus chairman Sen. Doug Linkhart of Denver. "It's a deeply emotional issue certainly for me to where I'm very upset about it."

The so-called compromise bill sending shock waves through the Democratic caucus and anti-gun advocacy groups is the same basic measure sponsored by Sen. Ken Chlouber, R-Leadville, over the past decade. It would require sheriffs to issue concealed weapons permits to applicants 21 and older as long as they pass a fingerprint criminal background check and show competency with a weapon.

Current law gives sheriffs and chiefs of police total discretion to issue concealed-carry handgun permits to anyone over 21 who passes a background check.

Sen. Ken Gordon, D-Denver, would oppose the bill and said it has "already divided the caucus."

"A lot of Democrats won't vote for a shall-issue bill," he said.

Chlouber, who hopes to co-sponsor the compromise legislation in the Senate with Matsunaka's name on it, said he's not surprised by the Democratic response.

"You expect some Democrats to fall off the bandwagon. There are some Republicans that fell off my bandwagon," Chlouber said, noting that some Republicans oppose the compromise as too restrictive and they don't want to help Matsunaka score political points.

Matsunaka decided earlier this year to dump his gubernatorial bid and run for Congress in the 4th District, a primarily rural district that stretches the length of the state and includes the Eastern Plains.

Opponents want to see restrictions on where people could carry handguns, such as parks, stadiums and public buildings, as part of the compromise, said Sam Mamet, Colorado Municipal League's associate director. They also want local jurisdictions, such as Denver, to maintain the discretion to issue the concealed gun permits.

The bill would originate in the House with a moderate Democrat, Rep. Lois Tochtrop, D-Westminster, sponsoring it to gain Democratic support.

On Monday, Matsunaka threw a wrinkle into a possible compromise, asking that a safe-storage provision be included. Matsunaka said the provision might help win support among his Democratic colleagues.

But Matsunaka also made it clear he is so eager to get a concealed gun permit bill with his name on it that he will offer one of his own if the current compromise doesn't pass muster with Senate Democrats. On the other hand, he also wants to get consensus among Democrats and not just push the bill through, which he could do.

"I was hoping we'd get it done by now, but I honestly think there are some people here who don't want a bill at all," Matsunaka said.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Thiebaut said he didn't think Matsunaka would be able to get enough support from either side. "Philosophically, it's too restrictive for the Republicans and too liberal for some Democrats," Thiebaut said, adding that he would probably oppose the measure."

From a ColoradoRKBA e-mail list, The Post presented this as options for a "poll:"

"Should anyone be permitted to carry concealed weapons?

Yes- but it should only be law enforcement officials.

No, we have enough trouble with guns.

Undecided- it could be reasonable in a few cases.

No opinion. I don't have guns and I don't worry about 'em."

"Nice" to see something unbiases once in a while, no?

(&, is anyone out there at all .... ?)

 

[jimpeel]

Called NRA today and told them this was crap -- not that this will matter a tinker's damn.

 

[Justin Moore]

'Course, again, PPFC & most from CSSA are all behind this because it gives us "something."

Exactly what the moron in the blue hat at the gun show tried to 'lecture' me about He didn't seem to grasp the concept that it was actually a step backwards.

labgrade, I am assuming you read the bill. Does it create new 'victim disarmament zones' as is my suspicion?

 

[LonWilson]

From the reading of the bill, it looks like the only place that is "prohibited" is K-12 schools, and that's it.

However, this is a may-issue bill. No doubt about it.

 

[labgrade]

Re "victim disarmament zones" ...

Yup, there's the K-12, as mentioned, + the "private property zones" as well.

But hold on - I'm all in favor of anyone being able to decide how their business, etc, is used & who gets to come in - all that, but, a nifty aspect of our lives is that "public/private partnership" thing that keeps raising its ugly head.

As an example, Coors Field is "private" but is paid for by tax dollars, etc. & is a public place. Likely we'll be banned from same & all similars.

As with some latest "expectations of privacy" in public places, I'd suspect this too will be used not to our best advantage.

 

[labgrade]

This bill is so much a loser - except for the political cover it gives so many - that, & influence & the feeling of "getting something done."


Gun bill heads for House scrutiny

"'Carefully crafted' plan to standardize permits hinges on compromise

By Michele Ames, News Staff Writer
April 22, 2002

A fragile compromise supporters say is the best shot in years at creating statewide standards for issuing concealed weapons permits faces its first real test today.

The debate before the full House will signal whether there is enough support in the political middle to pass HB 1410, which is expected to be opposed by those on both extremes of the gun control question.

The measure sponsored by Rep. Lois Tochtrop, D-Westminster, has already won the approval of two committees.

It would replace Colorado's current patchwork system that allows some sheriffs to issue hundreds of permits, including ones for people who live in other counties, while others turn down almost all applicants.

"This is a common-sense issue for the common-sense middle," Tochtrop said. "And this proposal is a carefully crafted attempt to get state uniformity."

The basic premise of this "shall issue" compromise bill offends many gun control advocates. They won't support a proposal that requires sheriffs to issue permits to applicants who pass background checks and show proof of gun safety training.

Those on the pro-gun side of the debate feel the proposal is too restrictive and sets up too many hurdles for law abiding citizens to exercise what they argue are basic Second Amendment rights. They also oppose a provision in the bill that would allow sheriffs to turn down an applicant if they have documentable evidence of mental instability that wouldn't show up on a background check.

Pro-gun factions argue that gives a sheriff too many opportunities to refuse to issue a permit.

But if the final decision rests with those in the middle, as many believe it does, then the real sticking point will be deciding where permit holders can and cannot carry a weapon.

The bill currently only prohibits guns in public schools. Representatives of other organizations, such as universities and hospitals, have failed to insert language that also prohibits concealed weapons in their facilities.

"If we can't get some amendments on the bill to keep guns out of some of these places, I can't be a 'yes' vote on this bill," said Rep. Cheri Jahn, D-Wheat Ridge.

Jahn has the same problem other moderates in both parties have -- they want guns out of certain places. Jahn can rattle off a whole list including stadiums, preschools and bars.

But so far, attempts to add those exemptions have been resisted by the bill's supporters. They argue that the proposal is silent on whether cities can adopt their own restrictions on where weapons can be carried. However, opponents say the bill pre-empts local governments from doing that.

According to a legal opinion from Legislative Legal Services, the legislature's legal staff, current law is ambiguous about where people can carry concealed weapons and the bill does little to clear that up.

A 14-page memo, written at the request of a lawmaker, concludes that the courts will likely have to rule on how the law is to be applied.

For Jahn, that's an ambiguity she can't live with. (who could? - labgrade)

"I think that's a really bad way to write public policy," she said.

But for others who have been pushing for years to see the proposal pass, the compromise is generally a good one.

"I think this House, with the exception of the far groups on either side, is willing to compromise," said Rep. Joe Stengel, R-Littleton. "The bulk of us in the middle are going to come together and pass this bill."

Contact Michele Ames at (303) 892-2327 or amesm@RockyMountainNews.com "

 

[LonWilson]

Which is why we need to rally our support behind HB1242, which is now in the Senate Judicary committee. The law in the bill makes it CLEAR that firearms laws are uniform throughout the state. HB1410 is a POS bill.

 

[OJ]

I agree. Did I understand that Rep Schulteis (R) voted against it because it wasn't his bill? Perhaps he should get some "marriage counseling" that he embraces annually.

 

[LonWilson]

I agree. Did I understand that Rep Schulteis (R) voted against it because it wasn't his bill? Perhaps he should get some "marriage counseling" that he embraces annually.

Huh? Well, Shulteis is standing on principle. HB1410 blows. Read the two bills, compare them.

 

[Solitar]

HB02-1242 by Schultheis - official summary.

Recognizes the issuance of permits to carry concealed handguns ("permits") as a matter of statewide concern. Repeals the authority of a chief of police to issue permits to carry concealed weapons. Requires each sheriff, and any person having the duties of a sheriff in a city and county, to issue a permit to any person who applies for such permit and is eligible to possess a handgun under federal and state law. Requires the sheriff to issue or deny the permit within 10 days after receiving an application. Makes the permits valid for a period of 5 years and renewable for subsequent 5-year periods. Clarifies that any permit to carry a concealed weapon issued prior July 1, 2002, shall expire on the expiration date specified on the permit. Clarifies that the act does not prohibit a private property owner from prohibiting handguns on his or her property. Specifies that a sheriff is not liable for damages arising from the issuance of a permit if the sheriff acted in good faith compliance with the act in issuing the permit. Requires each sheriff who receives a permit application to request the Colorado bureau of investigation to conduct a criminal history records check to determine whether the applicant is eligible to receive a permit. Allows a sheriff to impose a fee for the issuance or renewal of a permit, not to exceed $100. Prohibits a sheriff from imposing any criteria or requirements on a permit applicant beyond those specified in the act. Directs the sheriff to provide each applicant with information on handgun safety and legal issues involving the use of handguns. Prohibits a sheriff from requiring an applicant to provide any information concerning weapons the applicant may own. Provides reciprocity for permits issued by any state that accepts permits issued in this state. For purposes of the exception to the offense of carrying a concealed weapon that addresses weapons in vehicles, amends the exception to apply to any handgun carried in a vehicle for any lawful purpose. Makes conforming amendments.

This is the best CCW bill proposed since Columbine.
(the NRA has their head in the sand or ... )
Find the entire bill here.
http://www.leg.state.co.us/2002a/pubhome.nsf