Put common sense in concealed-carry law

Denver Post ^ | 2-16-03 | State Sen. Ken Chlouber

[Pat Bateman]

perspective

Put common sense in concealed-carry law

Gun control: Should we attach some strings?

By State Sen. Ken Chlouber

Sunday, February 16, 2003 - The foundation for any proposed legislation should be plain old common sense.

With that as the guiding light, my job is to show up early, roll up my sleeves and do everything possible to make a better Colorado.

The question is not whether law-abiding citizens of Colorado should be allowed to carry concealed handguns.

That law is on the books and doesn't even require the permit-holder to be law-abiding. The proper question is, by what process should these permits be issued? Today's law is a single sentence:

"A chief of police or sheriff may issue written permits to carry concealed weapons."

Now, that sentence doesn't pass anybody's common-sense test.

If you're pro-gun, pro-Second Amendment and in favor of individual freedom and individual responsibility, today's law is arbitrary and capricious. Its application is inconsistent and uncertain in different areas of the state. Some jurisdictions here issued thousands of these permits; others have issued very few.

If you are anti-gun and believe only law-enforcement officials should carry handguns, or that concealed handguns have no place in today's society, then today's law should give you much concern.

Consider all the people you know who you absolutely would not want to have this permit. Under today's law, they qualify.

Today's law doesn't require an extensive background check. Today's law requires no training. Under today's law, those permits are valid everywhere except where federal law prohibits. That exclusion basically includes federal buildings and airports. Yes, those permits are valid in every public school.

So you see, whatever your perspective, today's law is wrong. The overwhelming opinion among Colorado citizens is that our concealed-carry law should include solid, clear and consistent guidelines as to who can receive a permit. My bill outlines strict requirements. The applicant must be an honest, law-abiding citizen of Colorado, at least 21 years of age, and have no prior criminal record, no restraining orders and no drug or alcohol problems.

The applicant also must prove a high level of training by meeting certain requirements and standards.

After all of that, if the sheriff can document evidence that the applicant will be a danger to himself or others, the permit still will not be issued. These permits will be the same for all Coloradans.

Gov. Owens has demanded that concealed-carry permits shall not be valid in our public schools. He has demanded background checks. He has demanded quality training. My bill meets these requirements.

SB 24 has the support of the Colorado Sheriffs Association, the Colorado Police Protective Association, the National Rifle Association and the Colorado State Shooting Association. Without question, whatever your viewpoint, it's far better than today's law.

The pro-gun and anti-gun extremists will continue their very passionate, emotional battle. On another day, I might join that fight. But on this day, I'm looking for a common-sense way to fix a bad law. SB 24 is the right answer at the right time.

Sen. Ken Chlouber, R-Leadville, is the president pro tem of the state Senate. He represents District 4, which includes Lake, Douglas, Teller, El Paso and Park counties.

[Pat Bateman]

'Common sense' is a term just about beaten to death on this issue.

[WFTR]

Are they really afraid that someone who will go to the trouble to get a concealed carry permit will walk into a school and start shooting? I realize that people in Colorado will be sensitive about guns in schools, but they also need to think. The people who are a danger are the people who are going to find ways to hurt people regardless of the bureaucratic roadblocks that the state erects. Allowing responsible citizens to have guns in and near public schools is a real defense against the predators.

Likewise, the restraining order restriction is stupid. Crazy people who are really going to hurt someone else won't be stopped by a law saying that they can't carry the tools to do harm. However, laws that make a blanket prohibition against anyone who is the subject of a restraining order hurt those who are already being hurt by someone who is paranoid or vindictive enough to go to court and ask for a restraining order.

I don't see a great deal of "common sense" in this bill. A better law would be to repeal prohibitions against concealed carry on the grounds that those prohibitions are unConstitutional.

WFTR
Bill

[RandallFlagg]

That's just what I was going to say. The CCW process should be cheaper, easier and uniform throughout the state.

[Badray]

Well said. Pennsylvania is 'shall issue', has no training requirement, and is valid except in the Federal 'safe for criminal' zones. It doesn't always happen, but a lot of time the permit is issued on the spot after the background check.

[Pat Bateman]

Well, reading your posts on these threads, here's 'common sense'! Thanks.

[Godel]

The foundation for any proposed legislation should be plain old common sense.

Thats funny, I thought he foundation for any proposed legislation should be the US Constitution. But then again I'm not a liberal.

[riverrunner]

The only common sense is in one word VERMONT. Unlimited CCW in Vermont. NO permit required.

[jsraggmann]

And not much crime either. Could it be that there is very little crime because "an armed society is a polite society"?