ryoder 1,406 #1 February 27, 2011 http://www.kgwn.tv/Global/story.asp?S=14147305"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #2 February 27, 2011 Quotehttp://www.kgwn.tv/Global/story.asp?S=14147305 as it should be puts the bad guys and the good guys on a level playing feild"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #3 February 27, 2011 Seems to me, a person who 'legally' owns a gun(s) should be allowed to carry a gun. The news story was quite vague but I agree with the 'theory' of it. I'm sure, the 'anti-gunners' are fixin' to have an aneurism. Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,406 #4 February 27, 2011 Text of the bill: http://www.scribd.com/doc/49550298/1205-01"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riddler 0 #5 February 27, 2011 Police Departments oppose the measure. I have to ask, why? Seems to me if I were a law-abiding citizen, and the police arrested me or even questioned me, they would ask if I have a concealed weapon. I would say, yes. Maybe they would ask me to give it to them until said questioning or arrest is complete, then return it. No threat to them. A criminal would say no. But aren't they already doing that? I'm sure my response sounds naive, but maybe a LEO can chime in and say why this is a bad idea?Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,672 #6 February 28, 2011 QuoteQuotehttp://www.kgwn.tv/Global/story.asp?S=14147305 as it should be puts the bad guys and the good guys on a level playing feild Good guys could already get a permit - doesn't change anything for them.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MBiegs 0 #7 February 28, 2011 Makes more sense then no-permit open carry like we have in wisconsin. Personally, I'm against it. The main reason I am against carrying at all is because of the lack of training that comes with a firearms. To purchase a handgun here you submit to a background check and wait 48 hours. No license, no gun safety course... that's all fine with me if you're not leaving your home. If you're going out onto the streets with that gun around me, my wife, my children, or anyone I care about, I have a few demands... Know about how your gun works. Know how to use it. Know when you can point it at someone. Know when you can shoot someone. Know why you are shooting someone if you need to... because it's not to kill them. Know how to retain your weapon if someone tries taking it from you. Know how to store your weapon. Know what to do after you take action. Know what to do when the police arrive. There are many more things you need to know, I only have time to list a few. Realize what you see is not always what is happening... I know of a few stories in states that allow open/concealed carry where a few cops were taking action in plain cloths and were shot by someone who didn't realize what was going on. One in particular an officer was at a gas station filling up his car when he was approached by a guy wielding a metal pipe. The man demanded the officers keys to his car threatening to hit him if he didn't comply. The officer took a few steps back, drew his weapon, ordered the man to the ground and before he could even call 911 he was shot in the back 5 times. The man who shot him was carrying concealed. He saw a black man pointing a gun at a white man and took action. I can't say race had anything to do with it, but I can't say it didn't either(we all get fed what the medial gives us on TV and in the movies about what criminals look like... but that's a different thread). If you don't have training(and even if you do), when your adrenalin is pumping and you draw that gun on someone you DO get tunnel vision, hearing goes away, and you have one thing on your mind... stop the threat. I've been there in training, most cops have. Witnesses stated the guy loudly identified himself as a police officer, but the shooter didn't hear anything, nor did see the man with the pipe in his hand. With no training this kind of stuff just happens. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #8 February 28, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuotehttp://www.kgwn.tv/Global/story.asp?S=14147305 as it should be puts the bad guys and the good guys on a level playing feild Good guys could already get a permit - doesn't change anything for them. In some states And in some states it is not a requirment A good move Permiting only delays or deters the law abiding the crooks will have gun either way"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #9 February 28, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuotehttp://www.kgwn.tv/Global/story.asp?S=14147305 as it should be puts the bad guys and the good guys on a level playing feild Good guys could already get a permit - doesn't change anything for them. So nothing is changed for the good guys (except they don't have to pay the fee). Nothing is changed for the bad guys (they'd carry no matter what the law says). And the state doesn't have to process as many concealed carry applications each year (people who want a CO CC license to carry in one of the other 30 states that honor a CO license). I don't see a down side here.-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,672 #10 February 28, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuotehttp://www.kgwn.tv/Global/story.asp?S=14147305 as it should be puts the bad guys and the good guys on a level playing feild Good guys could already get a permit - doesn't change anything for them. So nothing is changed for the good guys (except they don't have to pay the fee). Nothing is changed for the bad guys (they'd carry no matter what the law says). And the state doesn't have to process as many concealed carry applications each year (people who want a CO CC license to carry in one of the other 30 states that honor a CO license). I don't see a down side here. Not sure about CO, but some states require training prior to issuing a CCW. I see an upside to training.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #11 February 28, 2011 All of the training requirements in other states that I am aware of are simply training about what is state law relative to deadly force and where you can and can't carry. While training is never bad, this kind of training helps keep the honest people honest. If there were states with honest-to-god tactical handgunning courses required for concealed carry, then I'd be right there saying removing those training requirements would result in fewer handgun-proficient concealed carriers. But I don't know of any states that require more than some classroom work regarding laws, and a "can you hit the broad side of a barn" shooting test.-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #12 February 28, 2011 Quote Not sure about CO, but some states require training prior to issuing a CCW. I see an upside to training. I see an upside to voter training too, but I'm not going to make it mandatory to participate. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #13 February 28, 2011 QuotePolice Departments oppose the measure. I have to ask, why? Quote Colorado Association of Chiefs of Police lobbyist Annmarie Jensen says police departments across the state oppose the measure. Police chiefs often differ from the rank and file cops. The first group are primarily politicians, REMF types. They're echoing their voters, so in a place like SF or NYC or NO, they're going to oppose it. The cops in the field tend to be greater supporters of gun and carry rights, though I don't haven't seen stances on permit free CCW. Only a few states have this. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #14 February 28, 2011 Quote Good guys could already get a permit - doesn't change anything for them. So you would support a permit to vote or exercise free speech? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,406 #15 February 28, 2011 Quote Not sure about CO, but some states require training prior to issuing a CCW. I see an upside to training. http://www.rmgo.org/concealed-carry-guide/step-by-step-instructions-for-getting-your-concealed-carry-permit"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #16 February 28, 2011 QuoteNot sure about CO, but some states require training prior to issuing a CCW. I see an upside to training. Requirements: 1. Colorado resident 2. Age 21 or older 3. Not precluded by state or federal law from owning or possessing a firearm (e.g. felony conviction, mentally incompetent) 4. Does not chronically or habitually abuse alcohol 5. Is not an unlawful user of or addicted to controlled substances 6. Is not the subject of a civil or criminal restraining order 7. Complete background check, including fingerprint verification by FBI/CBI 8. Demonstrates competence with a handgun by one of the following means: a. evidence of experience with a firearm through participation in organized shooting competitions or current military service b. certified firearms instructor c. honorable discharge from the Armed Forces within past three yearss d. proof of pistol qualification in Armed Forces within past ten years, if discharged e. retired law enforcement with pistol qualification within past ten years f. proof of completion of a handgun training class within the past ten years BTW: Open Carry: Unrestricted under state law; localities may regulate this aspect independently. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,150 #17 February 28, 2011 Seeing voting, free speech and the right to a firearm as equal has to be a typical American thing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #18 February 28, 2011 QuoteSeeing voting, free speech and the right to a firearm as equal has to be a typical American thing. And why should it not be? A free people should have the right to defend themselves. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #19 February 28, 2011 QuoteSeeing voting, free speech and the right to a firearm as equal has to be a typical American thing. two of them (speech and guns) are right next to each other in the Constitution. Were also the first 2 of ten enumerated in the Bills of Rights section. Voting, otoh, wasn't squared away fully until the 14th. A reasonable person would certainly see that as equal standing, whether or not they're American. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #20 March 1, 2011 QuoteA reasonable person would certainly see that as equal standing, whether or not they're American. All a person would really have to do is look at the quotes of the founding fathers and see what importance they put on the 2nd. I am still waiting for one anti-gunner to provide a SINGLE quote from the Founding Fathers that say individuals should NOT have the right to guns. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
