Skip to comments.If you can own a gun, why can't you carry it?
Posted on 02/16/2003 1:07:25 AM PST by Pat Bateman
If you can own a gun, why can't you carry it?
Gun control: Should we attach some strings?
By State Sen. Doug Lamborn
Sunday, February 16, 2003 - When I was sworn into the state Senate earlier this year, I vowed to defend both the Colorado and U.S. constitutions. My concealed-carry bill does just that.
The Colorado Constitution does not grant an unrestricted right to carry concealed weapons. However, the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
The Second Amendment is a personal right of the individual, a right to self-defense. To believe otherwise is to believe that while our nation's founders constructed all of the other nine amendments to the Bill of Rights to protect individuals, this one alone protects government.
With both our state and our federal constitutions in mind, I drafted Senate Bill 63. My bill would turn Colorado into a "shall-issue" state with minimal restrictions, as opposed to the current "may-issue" approach that provides a patchwork of burdensome rules and regulations. My bill requires background checks and encourages - but does not mandate - formal training for applicants.
Also, it would require safety and legal information to be distributed with the concealed-carry permit.
Although concealed weapons may be regulated in Colorado, such regulations should include as few restrictions as possible. This is how we honor our federally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms without infringement.
I firmly believe that if you legally own a gun, you should have the right to carry it concealed. Federal and state law does not permit people with certain drug and alcohol violations, mental instability and certain criminal backgrounds - including acts of domestic violence - to own handguns. If you are lawfully entitled to own one, however, why should that not be enough to entitle you to a permit? Why should we set a higher standard for carrying than for possession? After all, it is a constitutional right we are talking about.
If I have erred in drafting this bill, I have erred on the side of fewer restrictions to be true to my oath to uphold our state and federal constitutions. I do recognize the political reality that this bill will be amended if it is to become law, but I do not want it watered down so much that constitutional rights are unacceptably infringed. I truly hope this bill will become law with minimal amendments and restrictions.
Critics of concealed-carry legislation argue that more guns will lead to more violence. But of the almost 5,000 people who have had concealed-carry permits in the last eight years in El Paso County, there is not one single incident of a violent or criminal act in violation of that permit. Further, there are 32 right-to-carry states, up from seven in the mid-1980s, without any noticeable increase in violent crimes. In fact, homicides nationwide from 1985 to 2000 were down 30.6 percent, and violent-crime rates were down 9.1 percent.
In another example, Florida enacted its shall-issue permit law in 1987, which prompted gun opponents to call it the "GUNshine State." But in the first five years of the law, homicide rates fell 23 percent.
This is a bill that puts the law-abiding citizen on the same playing field as the criminal. This is a bill that will put an end to the myriad of laws that confuse our citizens. This is a bill that puts common sense into gun ownership.
This is a bill that protects your rights - your right to bear arms and your right to self-defense. Law-abiding citizens win and only the criminals lose.
Sen. Doug Lamborn of Colorado Springs, the Senate Republican Caucus Chairman, represents District 9, which comprises the north central area of El Paso County. He is chairman of the State, Veterans & Military Affairs Committee.
Sorry to inform you, but the states have whittled it down to nothing.
There are too many liberal democrats from California, the east, and Mexico now living there - it is now questionable whether or not this will pass with the current voters that now live there. In the Columbine shootings, not one single parent, uncle, or mother had the courage to go in there and get her kids out before they were shot - instead they all waited for hours listening to the kids get shot. A conservative would just not stand outside watching police hiding behind fire trucks and listen to his kids get murdered. I was in Boulder for a month and it was almost impossible to find any conservatives there. Same thing with the ski towns, they are now all liberal cities.
I agree that there should be no restriction.
However, the Second Amendment does not "give" anything. It prohibits the government from infringing the pre-existing, unalienable, Creator-endowed right to keep and bear arms.
Nonsense. My friend was restrained by deputies while the police did their "jobs". His son never came out alive. This friend and his wife were the only parents who refused to go meet the Clintons when they came here for their photo-op. They are also about the only ones who haven't sued everyone in sight. They did offer the killers family their prayers. Their courage is inspirational in the face of unspeakable horror.
You spoke out of turn.
Even though he's probably not the first person to say this, this is a great point IMHO.
Exactly right. An all-important distinction.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.