(Promoted by Colorado Pols)
Wasting no time with their pledge to make every day about guns during the 2014 session, Reps. Wright and Holbert are first up to bat with HB14-1041, a bill for an act:
"CONCERNING ALLOWING A LAW-ABIDING PERSON TO CARRY A CONCEALED HANDGUN WITHOUT A PERMIT, AND, IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, PRESERVING CURRENT LAWS RESTRICTING THE CARRYING OF CONCEALED HANDGUNS ON CERTAIN PROPERTY INCLUDING SCHOOL GROUNDS."
This bill does two things. I'd address them in order of crazy, but I can't honestly decided which is which.
First, the bill basically says that anyone who would be able to lawfully possess (notice: "Possess", not "purchase") a gun in the State of Colorado automatically has the right to concealed carry without a permit.
The word possess is key here, especially as the Republicans work to loosen the Universal Background Check restriction put in place in 2013. If the bill limited the provision to people who could legally purchase a gun in Colorado, this would be slightly less insane, but only slightly.
Then you move onto the second section. Now, the title of the bill might lead you to believe that the second section would strengthen the laws in place to keep guns out of schools, but you'd be wrong.
Section 2 says that any person who is authorized by the first section to carry a concealed weapon may also do so on school grounds. It amends 18-12-105.5 which is titled: "Unlawfully carrying a weapon – unlawful
possession of weapons – school, college, or university grounds." and adds an exemption to the restriction which allows anyone who can possess a gun in a normal circumstance can carry it concealed on school grounds.
I'm not sure what "current restriction" is being preserved there.
So now let's all watch while the Democrats screw up the messaging while they kill this obviously horrible bill.
DOA. Wright is piece of work.
. . . one down.
. . . four to go!
What is this freaking obsession with having teachers carry concealed weapons? I'm baffled. Anyone who has worked in a classroom knows that it's high-stress work – and that many teachers don't have consistent administration backup on discipline.
WTF would any sane person want to add concealed guns to this mix?
You have, my dear, provided the answer.
As a combat veteran of the misguided military misadventure in the sun andfun capitol of southeast Asia I'm always baffled by the gunhumpers apparent belief that seriously maiming or killing another human being is just the easiest,most natural thing on earth to do.Even with the proper training to enable accurate fire there remains the problem of actually harming or killing another person and it's not as easy as the gunhumpers seem to suppose.General S.L. A. Marshall's work on the ratio of fire disputed but never refuted would seem to bear this out. One hopes this dies aborning in the legislature.
Love the comments made by: langelomisterioso! Tegucigalpa – was "interesting"..!
This bill is much too weak. We need a clear right to carry concealed flame throwers! Guns are ok, but for close in work, you can't beat the flame thrower. I grant you that the tanks are bulky and hard to conceal, but if nothing else a Hunchback of Notre Dame costume would allow law-abiding citizens to carry this useful deterrent to crime. Where is Greg Brophy when we need him?
Why can't I drive around in a car bomb?
Agreed with the caveat that flamethrowers are notoriously finicky and unreliable. I think hand grenades are the answer. Simple to use and ultimately concealable. Mass casualties with only one weapon deployed What more could a gunhumper want?
Flame throwers??? Hand Grenades???
Why this rush to feed the military/industrial/armaments complex??? Who's paying you people?
Small is beautiful — molotov cocktails are cheap, easily manufactured, and won't put more piles of $$ into the hands of industrialist greedheads trying to perpetuate an oligarchy.
Didn't you people learn anything at all in the 1960s??
I remember once I was reading in class. Like my own book becaue whatever the teacher was teaching was not what I particularly wanted to be learning. I did that sort of thing.
She grabbed the book (from the library) and flung it across the room. If only she had been carrying, she could have drawn and shot it out of the air… which would have made an even better impression, IMO, as far as setting examples for unruly kids.
I won't get into specific incidents, but teachers are human beings. There have been many times when I've had to count to ten while thinking, "They are only children. Only children."
Some schools have lots of fights, too. Usually pushy-shovey with the males, and hold-on-to-the-hair intense with the females. (Most teachers would much rather break up a boy fight). How many people would be tempted to put an end to it by pulling out a gun and firing a one-shot warning? How many ways could that go wrong?
He's my freakin' representative.
Once Sen. Scott has served his term he may be your State Senator too. Or would that be Rose?
…snide remark, no disrespect to Claudia who should not hold back on the Rep.
Scott will be Senator. King rotates to sheriff. Barbara Brewer will probably be appointed to fill Scott's vacancy since she's term-limited as assessor.
Jared is a laughingstock. He knows the Western Slope GOP is already grooming his replacement, so he's desperately trying to gin up support amongst the craziest of the crazies, in hopes he can paint their candidate as too moderate.
Sadly, it could work.
I dunno, the guy who was going to primary him from the right unaffiliated a couple of weeks ago.
I feel your pain.
Colorado law (or any state's law, for that matter) is not always written in a straightforward manner. Current CCW permit holders cannot take their guns into schools because of 18-12-214 (3) which states "a permit issued pursuant to this part 2 does not authorize a person to carry a concealed handgun onto the real property, or into any improvements erected theron, of a public elementary, middle, junior high, or high school; except that" It then gives exceptions for guns in locked vehicles, school security officers, and property used by the school district for hunting or other shooting sports.
This bill would have the permitless CCW carrier follow that same limitation.
By the way, the bill sponsors will repeatedly refer to thisbill as "constitutional carry." This is totally disingenuous as our constitution clearly states that the right to bear arms (Article II, section 13) "shall not be called into question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons." THERE IS NOTHING CONSTITUTIONAL about blanket permitless concealed carry.
Nevertheless, I highly oppose this bill, as should all thinking Coloradoans. We don't need to join Vermont, Arizona and Alaska in guns everywhere for virtually everyone.
Most teachers don't want to be armed and have no or little experience with guns. A short training course (paid for by by whom?) would hardly be adequate to turn our teachers into a trained SWAT force even if most teachers had the desire to be part of any such thing.
The trained pro at Arapahoe was enough to end the incident in 180 seconds and prevent mass casualties. Don't see how a building full of people with guns, teachers, administrators and 18 year old seniors, could have brought the incident to a better, quicker conclusion with less loss of life.
Yes these measures won't pass. But let's hope Dems don't do as they have done in the past; vote the sensible way on gun measures, then run and hide, looking like they're ashamed of what they've done and don't want to discuss it. That just leaves the field to to the confident wackos to get out their message unimpeded by Dem push back beyond "please don't hate us because we support sensible gun laws. Look at all the good stuff we do" which reinforces the wacko message that the Dems want to "take away our freedom" and are hiding their true intent.
Every political consultant who has advised avoiding the subject in those circumstances should never be given the opportunity to work on a Dem staff again. Not unless we want a constant stream of Dem resignations as the only defense against recalls. When it comes to messaging offense wins over letting the opponent put you on the defensive every time. Please don't be mad at me for my vote is a weak as losing message.
We agree! Liberal cowards will not stand up and speak up for what they claim to believe in because they know most of us do not agree.
Wrong. Polls show most do agree on many things Dems call for. They just don't know it because Rs lie about it and political ops tell Dems to avoid subjects made unpopular by R lies. An overwhelming number of us, for instance, support expanded background checks. But Rs call it "taking away our guns"and Dems let them.
Also almost all Dems in office, both in our state and in DC are moderates. Liberal Dems in office are extremely few and far between. In fact, all moderates in office are Dems. There are no non-conservative Rs in office any more. Rs like to use moderate to mean hardcore conservative but not totally nuts. That's not what it means. Dems are now the centrist party. Rs are the far right party. Period.
In fariness to the 'pubs, this bill has nothing to do with the legislation passed last year. This bill has been up every year since 2010, all but one year with Holbert as a prime sponsor. I can still remember him cackling with joy in a Capitol elevator back in 2010 on a day when the bill was set to move out of committee. Does that make it any less wacky? No. Just not vindictive.
Er. 2011. No edit make Hulk sad.
Hulk smash something…Hulk feel better…
Thank you for your message. I agree with you about that the Democrats need to speak strongly in support of what they did. They should be proud of the bills they passed. It does them no good to run away from it. In fact, it hurts them as being principle-less.
Correction: The shooter at Arapahoe committed suicide. He was not killed by the secuity guard. And I believe it all happened in 80 (not 180 seconds).
By the way, there have been NO mass shootings stopped by armed civilians.
I might have misremembered the number of seconds but I didn't say the officer killed the shooter. His actions did bring the incident to a quick close.
What evidence are you using to draw the conclusion that the security guard contributed to the end of the shooter's actions?
The CNN story about the shooting reports that the school resource officer, an armed deputy sheriff, ran down the hall towards the shooter, who was in the library. He was accompanied by an unarmed security guard and two administrators.
The quick response of adults (armed and unarmed) probably tipped the scales in the shooter deciding to take his own life at that point.
One of the security guards transferred out of AHS, possibly at his own request, and students are trying to bring him back.
For the record, I'm all for properly trained armed security guards protecting public places. Jeanne Assam was a volunteer armed security guard, who wounded the shooter at New Life church in 2007. New Life then rejected her for being gay.
What mama said.
OK, I was just asking, I honestly didn't know.
No worries. I honestly don't know plenty myself.
Is it not possible that the shooter took his own life as a result of being overcome with emotion (grief/remore/guilt) upon the realization of what he'd done to a classmate rather than the "adults closing in", which he may not have even been aware of?
Anything's possible, but this is what the CNN reporting said:
While the actions of the deputy are laudable, you'll forgive me if I'm skeptical that the sheriff' or anyone could know with certainty what was going on in the mind of the shooter.
I AM JUST THE MESSANGER HERE:
From Rep. Holbert:
On a side note,,. so your friend Holbert says that will come in another bill?
On a side note to the side note….
One would think a lawyer would know how to spell.
Messenger. Duly noted.
. . . dude's gotta' come up with five somehow !
I guess? He posted the comment on my wall and declined Miguel Ali's (formerly Ali Hasan) invitation to explain his stance here.
Don't blame him for declining. Having to come up with facty stuff and put it together via reasoning probably would have given him a headache.
You know me, I gotta link to the original bill 14-1041. So when I read section 2 of the bill, it does seem to me to do exactly what Indyninja said it did; that is, it allows concealed carry in schools, with a couple of caveats:
1. If the weapon is part of a course or club at school – most schools use fake guns with ROTC, but many also have shooting clubs and competitions, and some have vocational gunsmithing programs, apparently.
2. the person has to be over 21, and is able to legally possess a handgun in Colorado and USA.
Someone else who routinely decodes legislative language is welcome to weigh in on this. Ralphie? doremi? Konola?
In all fairness to Rep. Holbert, you seem to be expecting him to have a clear understanding of every ALEC-authored bill he signs on to sponsor . . . ????
Thanks. I'm not a lawyer, so I can only read it for what it says. I was worried for a minute taht I misinterpreted it, but I haven't been able to find anyone to explain how it does anything but what I described.
Opinions are worth what you pay for them, but I wouldn't say that the bill allows for concealed carry in schools. I read the bill thusly:
Old Law: C.R.S. 18-12-105(1): (1) A person commits a class 6 felony if such person knowingly and unlawfully and without legal authority carries, brings, or has in such person's possession a deadly weapon as defined in section 18-1-901 (3) (e) in or on the real estate and all improvements erected thereon of any public or private elementary, middle, junior high, high, or vocational school or any public or private college, university, or seminary, except for…
New Law: blah blah at least 21 blah blah same rights and limitations as 18-21-214, which says, (3) A permit issued pursuant to this part 2 does not authorize a person to carry a concealed handgun onto the real property, or into any improvements erected thereon, of a public elementary, middle, junior high, or high school; except that: (a) A permittee may have a handgun on the real property of the public school so long as the handgun remains in his or her vehicle and, if the permittee is not in the vehicle, the handgun is in a compartment within the vehicle and the vehicle is locked;
(b) A permittee who is employed or retained by contract by a school district as a school security officer may carry a concealed handgun onto the real property, or into any improvement erected thereon, of a public elementary, middle, junior high, or high school while the permittee is on duty;
(c) A permittee may carry a concealed handgun on undeveloped real property owned by a school district that is used for hunting or other shooting sports.
To me, the bill simply seems to allow the same level of concealed carry related to schools that is alrady allowed, just without a permit. Which is insane, of course, but the concealed carry in and around schools isn't novel.
You're probably correct in that the new law section 2 ( i ) does have the provisions you outlined above. It does make the weapon holder subject to the same "righs and limitations" as existing CC law.
So, in your reading of the law, the whole purpose of this new 14-1041 legislation which basically duplicates existing legislation 18-12-105.5 and 18-12-214 would be to allow someone without a concealed carry permit (but the person is at least 21 and would be allowed to possess a gun in CO) to have a gun in a glove compartment in a locked car on school property?
I'm not sure that makes me feel a whole lot better, having been in several "shelter in place" lockdowns in public schools with an active shooter in the neighborhood. Knowing that there could be guns in cars in the parking lot, owned by people without permits, would not increase the safety of the kids and adults in the building.
But thanks for your clarification. It is a good thing that this law won't pass. This whole hoo-ha must be solely for the benefit of people who won't consider going anywhere without a gun in the glove compartment of the car, and don't want to get nabbed for bringing it onto school property during parent conferences.
And also to get more miles out of the whole Dems hate the second amendment thing.
If you get the chance to ask, I'd love to hear how he comes about to that conclusion. Because that's not what I read.
Is the bill ALEC sponsored? Probably- ALEC has model legislation called the "Campus Personal Protection Act". But I'm appalled that Rep. Holbert apparently doesn't expect his constituents, including his constituents who read Pols, to read past the first couple of paragraphs in the bill.
Do our elected representatives now count on little teeny tiny attention spans? If the education system really started effectively teaching critical thinking, would the Rep. Holberts of the world applaud or boo?
It seems to me, mama, the Rep. Holberts of the world get their critical thinking skills from the fundamentalist Christian pulpit. There is no need, nor a tolerance for that matter, for critical examination in that world. There is only the Word…to be accepted without question. Even though that Word is not found in the words of the man they call their savior. Theirs is a false message.
The trouble is, that sort of faith has been used routinely throughout history by moneychangers, Pharisees, corporatists, investment bankers, charlatans, Baptist ministers, and Republican legislators (from a long, long list of such…) to exploit the powerless. All while blaspheming the Word they claim to represent.
We must always resist such mendacity.
I always thought the Mendacious should be a college football team.
Mendacious is a great word. Many musicians have used it, for their band names, song names, album names. For a football team, I guess being sneaky, misdirecting liars could be great game strategy. But don't you think that other teams would catch on eventually, if that was the team's actual name?
But Duke's right….we always have to resist mendacity in politics.
First other teams' members would have to know what the word means so….
Big Daddy…"Cat on a Hot Tin Roof"…I fell in love with the word then..