Concealed Carry passes House Committee
Thursday, March 27, 1997 -- Senate Bill 96 was passed this morning by the House State Affairs Committee, and is now sent on to the House Appropriations for approval before heading to the House floor.
Only by taking a tough position can we get a good bill
While some prefer to give away the farm from the beginning, we have proven that by demanding a real bill that recognizes our right to personal protection, we can send the anti-gun zealots (like Sen. Wham) scrambling for cover. Wham pledged to kill the bill if her "criminal safezones" were removed, but she backed off after seeing the landslide against her position. The lesson: the squeaky wheel gets the grease.
Bad Provisions in this bill
1. Sen. Wham removed the ability to carry in a car without a permit, (current law only allows you to carry in your car if you are "traveling," which is defined as an overnight stay) but we all know that this is the most used form of concealed carry. We don't need Wham's vote to pass the Senate, so why let her make this bill worse?
2. The fee is too high. Gun owners already pay huge taxes when they purchase a weapon, and don't need to fatten up police departments with excessive permit fees. Some states that do a background check charge as little as $8 a year, instead of this bill's fee of $125 for three years (the applicant must pay the fingerprinting fee himself, as well). Sheriffs and chiefs of police work for us, so we don't need to bribe them to support this bill.
3. Government-mandated training is a step in the wrong direction. Let's follow the lead of Vermont, New Hampshire, and other states that let the individual decide what kind of training they need.
The solution to these problems: The Vermont Law
An amendment will be offered on the House floor to change SB96 into a "Vermont Law." This would allow all law-abiding citizens to carry concealed without approval from Big Brother and without entering your name and fingerprints into a statewide database.
Call your Representative today at (303) 866-2904, and ask him/her to support the "Vermont Law."
This amendment was offered in 1996 and was short of the votes needed to pass. The Vermont Law is the true litmus test to see who is really with us and who will bail on us when the going gets tough.
Don't let legislators tell you that forcing a recorded vote on "Vermont" will kill the bill: it didn't in 1996 and won't today. This is their way of getting out of a tough recorded vote, which most politicians hate. Procedure is not a reason to vote against principle.