On Tuesday, March 18th, 2003, Colorado Governor Bill Owens signed into law a bill that was 10 years in the making. From the first salvo, fired in 1994's session, to 2003, it has been a contentious battle, spanning the entire careers of politicians and forcing a wide-ranging debate on the subject of citizens carrying concealed handguns.  I've been involved in that battle from the beginning.  For the first time in a decade, a bill actually passed.

SB24 wasn't much of a victory for gun owners, and in some areas was an outright defeat.  But like it or not, SB24 is now an Act - a law that redefines how Colorado citizens can get concealed carry permits and what you can do with those permits. SB24 goes into effect on May 18th.

For most citizens of the state this new law will have little effect on whether they can get a permit: few sheriffs were withholding permits from citizens prior to the new law. The irony here is that this law was passed primarily to aid Denver residents, but it is unclear if Denver will comply with the law or ignore it and force a lawsuit.  If they choose the latter, Denver residents will be in a bigger fix than they were prior to SB24 because of another provision the sponsors of SB24 insisted upon: you can apply for a permit only with the county in which you reside. SB24's prime sponsor, Sen. Ken Chlouber, often used this as a lure to get anti-gun votes for his bill; "Right now, rogue sheriffs can issue to anyone for any reason." He wasn't quite accurate, since the old law required fingerprints and a background check, but his point was clear - pass my bill because you don't want non-approved citizens carrying concealed.  Chlouber must have forgotten that he has repeatedly voiced support for a Vermont law, which requires no permit, in an effort to gain trust with conservative lawmakers (hint: Chlouber isn't one of them).

If you can purchase a handgun legally and pass the Brady Registration check, you can pass the background check for SB24, except for the "naked man" clause that the Sheriff's Association insisted upon. "Naked man" refers to people whom law enforcement know are scofflaws but have no convictions - SB24's provision requires documentable evidence, such as an arrest, for a sheriff to deny a permit to these people. Again, this is another concession that could cost Colorado citizens dearly. Hopefully, the sheriffs’ fear of citizens' lawsuits will curb the use of this clause.

The only people who cannot get a permit but can buy a firearm must either be denied based on documentable evidence (under the above "naked man" provision, which is also called sheriff discretion) or those with numerous alcohol problems. Two or more alcohol-related convictions within the last 10 years, as well as being "committed as an alcoholic" under certain state laws, will provoke a denial as well.

The cost of the permit is a maximum of $100 plus the fingerprint fee ($30) for a 5 year permit, with renewals costing $50. This fee is far in excess of their actual cost, estimated at $40, and though the law only allows a fee to cover actual costs, it is safe to assume that few sheriffs will charge less. SB24 has no provisions to audit this cost, which means citizens will need to audit a sheriff's performance at the ballot box.

For those people who already hold a permit from Colorado, your permit will be valid until the expiration on the permit or June 2007, whichever comes first. You won't be able to renew your permit if it is from a chief of police, or if it is from a sheriff outside of your own county.

What kind of training is required? The list is long, though we fought hard to make it much shorter. Current service in the armed forces or retirement within the last 10 years from the same is sufficient (the latter thanks to the diligent work of RMGO members, who were the only group pushing this issue). Retirement from law enforcement or any handgun safety class within the last 10 years is also sufficient.

Hunter safety training is quite another issue. Since it is a firearms safety class offered by a law enforcement agency, it should fulfill SB24's requirements as written. But SB24 specifically requires it to be handgun training. There was much debate about this issue, but House sponsor Rep. Al White said, on the House record, that DOW training would fit within that category if Governor Owens instructs DOW to include handgun training in their course. This is still subject to interpretation: will previous hunters safety suffice, or must it be under new guidelines? Governor Owens promised a conservative state legislator that he would instruct DOW to add handgun training to their hunter safety curriculum, but that promise hasn't been fulfilled yet. Some sheriffs may accept your existing hunter safety card, while some may not. We'll keep you updated on this issue.

Probably the worst thing about SB24 is the statewide database it creates.  Under the previous law, there was no prohibition nor was there any law creating a statewide database that would contain permit holder information.

In December RMGO found out that many sheriffs were entering permit holders into CCIC, the Colorado Crime Information Center database. CCIC is used to track burglars, rapists and murderers, but right next to those names are permit holders. Through a state legislator we asked the Colorado Bureau of Investigation, which maintains CCIC, which sheriffs were entering that information: CBI refused to release the names, though they did admit that 33 county sheriffs were entering permit holders into CCIC. We later found out that the County Sheriffs of Colorado - the very same organization that had been fighting against concealed carry reform for a decade - had suggested that all sheriffs enter permit holders into that database, effectively creating a "dangerous persons" list.

Our biggest concern is that this information is yet another list of gun owners, useful to tyrants and overzealous bureaucrats alike, to track gun owners. When asked if he was entering that information into CCIC, a Democrat sheriff replied "No. I talked to a number of law enforcement officers about what they would do with that information, and I was a bit scared by their responses." Clearly, this CCIC is an issue that gun owners cannot ignore.

Of course, the real solution is to pass a Vermont law, where permits aren't needed and citizens aren't treated like criminals.  Short of that, we will do everything possible to get rid of this database.

That's exactly what we tried to do, especially in the last days of the battle over SB24.  Conservative House members made a concerted effort to include language in the bill to ban the statewide database, but State Rep. Al White wasn't interested.  Instead, he floated a compromise: the database would be banned in 2007, and in the meantime, sheriffs have the option of entering permit holders into CCIC.  White put that amendment on the bill, but the most solid pro-gun House members attempted to add the prohibition on the bill. We came up short, but we will make it a top priority next year when we try to fix SB24.

On May 18th, when SB24 takes effect, CBI should be releasing the information on which sheriffs have exercised their option to enter permit holders into a statewide criminal database. You can be certain we will get that information out to members, since sheriffs are elected and can be easily punished for putting their own law-abiding permit holders into this gun owner registration system.

If you are a current holder, SB24 also creates zones where you can't carry anymore: we call them criminal safezones, since only criminals will be armed there. The first, and largest, safezone is one Gov. Owens insisted upon: public elementary, middle, junior high and high schools.

RMGO worked to add language that would bar carrying in those areas only "with criminal intent" so that law-abiding parents and school district employees would have the means to self defense, but both the NRA and Owens rejected that idea. Neither of these two were willing to specify "public school buildings" which would have narrowed down the safezone. As the law is written, the only time you can carry on school grounds is in your vehicle, and if you park, it must be in a compartment in that locked vehicle. No longer can you carry on school grounds, their playground (even at night), at a high school basketball game or anywhere else that is considered school grounds.

The other criminal safezone created in SB24 are facilities with security personnel and electronics weapons screen devices permanently in place at the entrance, or even handheld screening devices. That means, among other places, courthouses (already prohibited by federal law), many city and county buildings, and even Coors field (technically a public facility, but with screening devices in place).

Privately owned businesses are a bit tricky. Under current Colorado law, trespass laws are in effect: if a private business posts a sign that says "No firearms" you would be violating the trespass laws by entering with a concealed (or openly carried) firearm. They would ask you to leave, without penalty. SB24 doesn't changed any of that. We fully expect many businesses to begin posting "No firearms" signs this summer: we are creating a program to deal with these businesses in the only language they understand - economics.

SB24 grants reciprocity to states that issue to those 21 years of age or older and which recognize Colorado's permits. Notice it says permits: Vermont residents are out of luck here in Colorado (another attempt by weak-willed politicians to deny the real freedom afforded to the state with our country’s best concealed carry law).

SB24 does strengthen the law concerning carrying in your vehicle. In 2000 the legislature passed SB154, which allowed you to carry in your vehicle while traveling from one jurisdiction to another, but it didn't protect you if you stayed in your own home county. Now, anyone in the state can carry a concealed handgun in their vehicle for any legal means, such as self defense.

There are a few other differences from the previous concealed carry law and permitting process: Retired law enforcement are treated differently than other citizens, despite the overwhelming evidence that LEO's are involved in domestic violence cases far in excess of non-badged citizens. The new law also specifies concealed "handgun" permits, as opposed to concealed weapons. That means if you carry a concealed weapon (like a knife under your jacket while elk hunting) your permit doesn't protect you.

Make no mistake about it: this law is the NRA's. It was designed to do two things: hang on the wall of NRA lobbyists, so they can say "One more state in the 'right to carry' column" (though how you can call it a "right" when you have to jump through government hurdles is beyond me); and to clean the skirts of Governor Owens, a politician to which the NRA is inextricably and unexplainably attached at the hip. Owens believes his previous transgressions against gun owners are now all forgiven, clearing the way for a presidential bid.

What can Rocky Mountain Gun Owners members claim as a victory? Frankly, though SB24 was the second most restrictive concealed carry law ever offered in Colorado, RMGO and our members at least stopped it from getting even worse.  In 1995, NRA "A" rated politicians Sen. Dottie Wham and Rep. Russ George (now Division of Wildlife Director) ran a "concealed carry" bill that required a showing of need and made carrying without a permit a felony. The NRA rewarded Rep. George in 1996 when he was the House sponsor of their concealed carry bill.

That was the direction of concealed carry in the mid-90's, at a time when few sheriffs issued permits. Had we allowed the NRA and their state lackeys to continue, the concealed carry law Colorado citizens now face would have been undoubtedly even more restrictive.

Marilyn Musgrave's SB156 in 1999 and Dave Schultheis' HB1242 in 2002 were both precursors to Doug Lamborn's SB63 this year. All three bills moved the yard markers in the right direction: toward more freedom. These bills put the burden of proof on the sheriff to prove that the citizen shouldn't be allowed a permit -- unless the sheriff could prove a citizen shouldn't, he had to issue a permit. And those three bills had a much broader view of freedom. Why didn't these bills pass, especially SB63? Like SB156, SB63 advanced further along early in the legislative process than the NRA's concealed carry bill.

The NRA, however, wasn't about to support any of these Vermont-style concealed carry bills, even though Gov. Owens' Deputy Chief of Staff Sean Tonner told a Fort Morgan crowd that Governor would support a Vermont-style bill.  In the end, the NRA has too much to gain in the form of training fees -- and the stroking of less-than-pro-gun politicians -- to try to pass a bill like SB63.

RMGO will need to be vigilant: we not only want to repeal some of the more onerous requirements of SB24, but we need to be on guard for the next step of those who, though they aren't outright gun-banners, have compromised our rights beyond recognition. One of the more likely efforts will be an attempt to "get tough on gun crimes" by increasing the penalty for carrying concealed without a permit from a class 2 misdemeanor to a felony. The NRA has supported efforts like this in the past, and rewarded those politicians who propose this kind of agenda. Remember, promoting the jailing of citizens for "gun crimes" is a part of the legislative agenda of some gun groups - Project Exile is a primary example.