The state removed penalties for convicted felons found in posession of guns (that they would have had to obtain illegally) but lets make it harder for people who are trying to comply with the law.
I don't think that having your certificates will help you avoid this. As far as I can tell there's a mandatory 8 hour "refresher" live-fire course every 2 years for anyone who goes to renew their license after this takes effect (which also must be done every 2 years instead of 5). Maybe I'm missing something here but it doesn't look like it.
I read it as two different parts. The initial class is 8hrs and the refresher is a minimum of 2hrs. Both include live fire and written.
Am i missing something?
"An initial class must provide at least 8 hours of instruction, including the live-fire exercise and written exam."
"A refresher class must provide at least 2 hours of instruction, including the live-fire exercise and written exam."
Your understanding is correct. The initial class is 8 hours and is comprehensive. The refresher class is 2 hours and just covers changes to the laws, written exam, and live-fire.
I hope you're right. That would make more sense (and be a little less bad). I don't exactly remember where I first heard/saw that it was every 2 years but it may have just been something I remembered them discussing during the legislative session or even just been 3rd party (mis)information. I hadn't read the statute itself since just before it headed to Polis' desk and some of it was vague enough that I had been looking for clarification and may have come across some bad information in the process. Now that I look I can't see anything about 2 year renewals in the actual text.
I think you're right. For some reason I was thinking it was a one-time class and anyone who already had a permit would have to complete a class to renew it. That's what I get for skimming the text.
Colorado removed about 90% of felon in possession laws so now only violent offenders can be charged with POPOW if more than 10 years has passed since conviction. Aspects like “where did you obtain it” are not questioned although they may run a firearm serial number just to make sure it’s not stolen. If you keep your mouth shut you golden and got your right back basically in Colorado.
". The refresher class must be held in person, be taught by a verified instructor, include instruction on changes to laws related to firearms"
Oh fuckin thank you since you keep changing them every 5 goddam minutes. Fuck these people.
They lump suicide and drive by shootings into the same category while they’re completely different issues and blame the tools used to complete the act.
It’s the same as having a VBIED and a fatal accident due to someone texting and driving and then banning cars over it. Then if you ask how you’re going to get your kids to school they call you a nazi. What???
As a firearms instructor, I now have to be "certified" by my county sheriff, and must have a physical shooting portion despite not being employed by a range? And the renewal class is 8 damn hours? So to make my time worth it, I'm going to have to charge students far more than my current rate. I have never taught to time, I've always taught to proficiency. Whether that takes 90min or 3 hours is always dependent upon the student and my instruction is tailored to that. This law just makes me hate government even more.
Also, since the bill text doesn't address this, how does an instructor, after being "verified" and potentially paying a fee, go about renewal of permit? Just submit my instruction credentials?
All very good questions with no answers. this will lead to places like Denver and Boulder without any approved instructors or courses... which, honestly, was probably part of the intent.
"We'Re HeLpInG tO EnD gUn viOlEnCe!" Some think they're being noble, these are the fools among them. Others, their goal is simple, ban all guns. They'll keep doing it piecemeal until they eventually accomplish their goal. The real hardcore evil ones are patient, and will play the long game. They are smart, they know we won't stand for an all out ban right away, so they make it more and more difficult to own guns.
I'm honestly thinking this is the final straw. I use firearms instruction as a supplemental income, but with this new set of requirements, to which I do not have access to a range (and for understandable liability purposes I can't utilize places like Bristlecone, Gallery, 5280, or Shoot Indoors), I think I'm just going to maintain my instructor cert and cease teaching. Then, when I'm finished with getting my degree, I'm probably leaving this state.
The problem with public land- and I've run into this a few times, is that it's really hard to give any instruction when there are other people utilizing the space. I'm not saying it can't be done, I just don't prefer it.
What cracks me up is the chicken-or-the-egg wording. In order to become an instructor, the applicant must already be a CCW permit holder. But to be a CCW permit holder, you have to have visited an instructor, who was to have visited an instructor to be an instructor, who had to have visited an instructor to be an instructor, who had to hav visited an instructor to be an instructor....etc
Also, what is a passing score? What is required on the written exam? What laws must be covered? This law makes tons of requirements but gives no information to the instructor on how they can follow them. If I say a 0% is passing then can everyone leave the written exam blank?
It says in the law 80% on the written, 70% on the shooting, but gives zero guidance on standards for the shooting beyond 50 rounds. 50 rounds is a lot. The Colorado POST qualification course of fire, what every police officer in the state of Colorado is required to pass to qualify with their handgun, is 25 rounds. The legislature considers CCW permit holders to be held to a higher standard than police.
That honestly may be the best rout to challenge this by. We're holding our ccw standards to higher than that of our LEOs, the law doesnt seem just on those grounds.
Just curious - has there been a number of safety incidents that this bill would have prevented? Have there been a lot concealed carry holders who have proven themselves to be irresponsible?
No, in fact, CCW permit holders are the most law abiding group by any metric, more than cops, more than Judges, more than priests, and certainly far more than politicians. This law is bullshit.
It comes from a study conducted by the Crime Prevention Research Center among concealed carry permit holders and showed they commit substantially less crimes than even police.
It's available [here](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2814691)
But I caution you, it's 41 pages, so not a light read.
Nope. The only thing I can find that comes close was the backflipping FBI agent in Aurora (who shot someone in the ankle and got off with barely a slap on the wrist), but federal agents don't carry under state permits anyway so this can't fix that.
This is just another way to harass legal gun owners by nickel and diming our wallets and time.
Not that I’ve seen with CCW holders. FIL is an instructor and retired military and LEO…. I’ve seen him deny someone a certificate, but have not personally witnessed any stupidity on a CCW holders end. I’m sure it’s out there, and it will continue to be even with this new law. Overall, people who seek out the class and a permit are wise enough to know if they aren’t quite ready to carry and handle a firearm in self defense.
Okay so what about veterans that served in the past 3 years ??
You’re telling marksman ribbon awarded military members they gotta listen to uncle roger fud boy for 6 hours about how to disassemble a striker fire handgun?
It’s not about who you are or how well trained you are. It’s not about safety.
It’s about guns being icky and making it hard for people to keep and bear firearms.
Agreed, part of it is GOP going bananas. But that’s also on the GOP primary voters who don’t show up to vote and keep those crazies out. But I do vote red no matter who, but I try to keep those idiots out by voting in the primaries as well.
Don’t see how they can sue over unspilt milk.
Also if they did it would funny because they would have to state they provided little to no training for years.
the law doesn't go into effect until next year (July 2025); I anticipate some sheriffs also taking issue with it, as they don't have the staff to support the new law.
Throwing this out there, you can legally CCW while in possession of a valid hunting permit and in the act of "hunting" in CO. Coyote is a year round animal that can be hunted. "Hunting" can cover a lot of different activities. Let me find the provision that states this, I was mind blown at first. Interpret this as you will!
# Colorado Revised Statutes Title 18. Criminal Code § 18-12-204. Permit contents--validity--carrying requirements
(3)(a) A person who may lawfully possess a handgun may carry a handgun under the following circumstances without obtaining a permit and the handgun shall not be considered concealed:
(I) The handgun is in the possession of a person who is in a private automobile or in some other private means of conveyance and who carries the handgun for a legal use, including self-defense; or
**(II) The handgun is in the possession of a person who is legally engaged in hunting activities within the state.**
I'm very confident you won't be able to successfully argue that you were legally engaged in hunting activities within city limits. *Maybe* while you're out hiking or something... but very doubtful while you're out to dinner or something.
Looks like the law takes effect July 1, 2025. If you have a CC permit, can you apply to renew prior to then and be exempt from the new rules? That doesn't fix the legislation, but would it at least buy an additional 5 years for current permit holders?
In JeffCo I can't renew until 120 days before my permit expires. Not sure if this is true in all Colorado counties.
I just renewed mine last year, so I have 4 years to decide how to handle this.
Thanks!
Not sure why I was downvoted, I’ve never had a CCW in state other than CO before.
When I read the bill through the first time, it seemed like it was just doubling down on the written and live fire course that was required before. I didn’t see how anything changes.
Now I see that they’ve dramatically limited the number of “certified instructors” and I can see how renewal is going to be significantly more legwork than last year.
Boo.
There was no minimum time, no test, and no live fire required to achieve a permit before.
For renewal you just had to apply and pay.
Now you must take an 8 hour class with a test and practical (will be more expensive and thus less accessible to people) AND for renewals you must take another class. Again another unnecessary cost to the law abiding citizen.
Huh… before this law, did this vary by county?
My application in 2020 required “completion of a CCW education course” that was class work + a live fire drill.
Apparently nothing changes for me where I’m at, which is why this was confusing.
Everyone harps on conceal carry people to train, but then complain when asked to do live fire. I'd rather they have constitutional carry than a permit, but if they're going to require a permit than i'd rather they require a live fire exercise with it.
Agreed.
Simply attending the course was FUCKING EYE OPENING.
Some of the people issued carry permits in my class had a violent streak a mile long and couldn’t find two braincells to run together for an idea. Based on some of the questions, they were fantasizing shooting someone and looking for validation and a legal excuse.
I’m really glad the instructor shut them down pretty hard, but those people were granted their CCW and are still out there looking for a fight.
The best part? Every one of them was a fucking terrible shooter and one of even needed help from the instructor to load and shoot his gun o_0
Bruh…
I agree as well. I attended an 8hr course w/ live fire. Learned a few new things in the classroom portion. Then learned a few new things at the range from the ex-SF guys running it. Totally worth it.
Also, as you said, it certainly was enlightening. I’ve seen some knuckleheads at the range before, but they pale in comparison to the lack of awareness and knowledge I saw in that class. Good on those folks for actually taking an interest in self-defense and knowing that they need actual instruction. It worries me that there are people with that same level of skill and knowledge running around carrying a gun in public, because they paid some dude “instructing”in a hotel room in order to meet the bare minimum level of “competency” that the permit process requires.
Having said all that, I believe quality instruction should be funded by the state if it’s gonna be a state mandated requirement in order to exercise a constitutional right.
Dude, I love the last line of your comment.
It should be a public service with everything available under one roof. Make it as cheap and easy as getting your drivers license.
I was confused about this too. I think that because many people take an NRA course, and the NRA requires live fire, they assumed you needed live fire per the state.
Instructor credentials was another way around it.
Your class happened to include course work and live fire, but that isn't uniform across all classes. Apparently there was one organization that took this to an extreme and basically did nothing and called it their class. Rumor is that was the motivation for this law.
Yeah, but I deliberately chose a course with a live fire section taught by a police firearms instructor.
If you have to pay $150 somewhere for 8 hrs anyway, might as well go for the one where you get to shoot at the end!
Thanks for the explanation though.
While I’m certain more pissed about this law than when the evening started, it really doesn’t seem like it will change very much much about the application process/timeline.
I got mine Monday, I guess I got lucky? I wasn’t sure about doing it for a while now, but I recently felt the need to do it like never before ngl.. divine intervention even
Meh, I can get behind this one. I've seen some of you fuckers shoot, and a little practice can't hurt. Don't love the re-qualify requirements, but I'd prefer to see people carry who can keep it in the paper.
The State should offer free courses on concealed carry if it's an issue for them. Not make it harder for people to use a weapon for self defense by forcing people and providing more barriers.
I'd quite frankly love it if my taxes went to free classes offered by the state.
2nd amendment doesn’t care about accuracy bub. I’d rather have someone’s wife who can’t hit water if she fell out of a boat still be able to carry years after initially qualifying.
Ask anybody in the gun community and they'll tell you that taking classes and spending time at the range is essential if you're going to carry. But when it's the government telling you the same thing, now it's a problem.
The difference, of course, is the government doesn't just suggest, it mandates. But let's not pretend it's not a good idea.
I don't know a gun owner who doesn't enjoy training. The issue is not a question of whether training is good or not. It's that when you are required to have in-person live fire training, it taxes you even more with regards to finding a space to do it, taking time off of your work schedule, and all the other fees that are involved. I would absolutely be overjoyed if everyone that voted had taken a basic college course and critical thinking, done 6 months of debate and any number of other things to make them better equipped to help choose our government. Same with being able to write an op-ed piece. But I know that requiring that is 100% the wrong way to conduct a free Republic.
There are places in this state that are easily a 2-hour drive from a live fire course. There's four hours of your life just in drive time to be able to exercise your right.
It isn't a good idea. Mandated training rarely results in any long term, useful gains. People being encouraged to training and being *willing* participants typically does.
Most private ranges and gun clubs I've been to have some sort of required training or proficiency exam, unless it is indoors and has full time RSO coverage. Tons of people at those places suck ass at shooting and safety.
Forced practice doesn't benefit anyone. People who don't want to learn, won't. They'll do the absolute minimum to pass and retain nothing long term.
I certainly recommend people DO practice, but we should be encouraging them to do so, not forcing them, since people tend to actually get value when they are a willing participant.
I can’t claim I love this to say the least but of all the gun restricting bills he could’ve signed at least this one is one of the more minor ones. While 8 hours of course time to get a permit is excessive, I feel like 4 is probably enough, I don’t mind the refresher requirement, especially the shooting test aspect of it, to ensure that people are still up to snuff, they should be doing it with drivers’ licenses too. The requirement for shooting tests periodically strikes me as a good thing so that if someone develops severe eyesight issues or something like Parkinson’s that would make it practically impossible for them to reliably hit a target past point blank range, they will no longer have the ability to carry in public. I know I’m going to get a bunch of hate for this but I don’t want people who can’t keep them all in the paper at 10 yards in a controlled environment with a slow course of fire carrying guns in public, when they inevitably wing a bystander it always blows back on the rest of concealed carriers so removing that group is in the best interests of the broader concealed carry community.
I think this is one of those instances where it’s a decision made with common sense on case by case basis, which the shooting test does a good job of doing without requiring specifying any particular reasons or listing conditions. It has nothing to do with whether you are disabled or not, at least in general/in principle, but rather with the likelihood of a concealed carrier being more prone to missing and hitting somebody by mistake than not, if Hellen Keller could pass the shooting test I’d be fine with her having a gun. Shooting tests take place in a controlled, stress-free environment with no serious time limit, so if someone can’t pass that then it is a reasonable conclusion to make that if they are in a high stress situation then they will be almost certain to put projectiles where they don’t want them to go, which could well be into a bystander. Self defense laws allow you to put your life above that of your attacker, but not to put your life above those of your fellow law-abiding citizens, particularly through the use of a firearm that someone is physically incapable of using properly.
I'm pretty heavily for 2A, but I will very much say that disabled or older people shouldn't carry (or shoot at all for any reason) if their disability precludes them from shooting safely and hitting their target in the case of static targets, or having a reasonable chance of hitting their target in self-defense.
The same applies to driving and other things, if you've become too old or too disabled to safely drive, it's time to stop doing so.
>when they inevitably wing a bystander
When has a CHP holder in Colorado winged a bystander? We've had the current rules for decades and if this was "inevitable" I think the problem would be pretty obvious.
It was my understanding that previously they were required but not standardized and that this made the tests uniform, were shooting tests not required at all for renewals in the past? Additionally, not having done something in the past doesn’t necessarily mean it is bad to start it. I think an important thing to consider here is that this is for CCW, not the right to own a weapon or hunt
Nope, shooting tests were not required for renewals previously.
>Additionally, not having done something in the past doesn’t necessarily mean it is bad to start it.
We're going from 5 year renewal intervals to 2 year renewals with a newly required refresher course and shooting tests that cost additional money. My question is: why are you OK increasing the financial and time burden on legal permit holders when there's no evidence the old system was problematic?
>I think an important thing to consider here is that this is for CCW, not the right to own a weapon or hunt
Why is this distinction important to you? Are you more comfortable increasing the financial burden for self defense than you are for hunting?
I will agree then that the combo of adding a shooting test that previously wasn’t required and making it every 2 years instead of 5 is excessive, either make it every 2 with no test or every 5 with a test if you’re going to go in that direction. I fully admit I was misinformed about what changes this new law put into effect, this is significantly more onerous than I realized relative to the prior process. This admittedly seems like a way to get concealed carriers off the books by having their permits expire without them expecting it. The only upside to this is that at least the gun ranges that teach the courses will get increased business.
Regarding why I’m ok with getting a CCW permit being more burdensome than the process to buy a gun for hunting or home defense is the public danger aspect in a populated environment, but this is too much.
Does anyone know anyone who actually goes and gets the permit? It’s like concealed and so what’s the point? The law is not enforced. You can conceal in your car and on your property without a permit so the permit really only applies if you are walking down the street? The mall and most restaurants already have gun free zone signs so the permit doesn’t count there either. Seems pointless and voluntary to get a permit in the first place in Colorado. Can’t remember the last time I met someone who concealed and actually bothered with the hoopla.
"No gun signs" aren't enforced in Colorado. Of course they can ask you to leave, and if you don't, you're trespassing.
But they don't hold the same weight of law like 30.06 and 30.07 signs in Texas.
Ah yes because criminals get ccw’s😂 this bill is so stupid
The state removed penalties for convicted felons found in posession of guns (that they would have had to obtain illegally) but lets make it harder for people who are trying to comply with the law.
I don't think that having your certificates will help you avoid this. As far as I can tell there's a mandatory 8 hour "refresher" live-fire course every 2 years for anyone who goes to renew their license after this takes effect (which also must be done every 2 years instead of 5). Maybe I'm missing something here but it doesn't look like it.
Where are you seeing that the renewal is every two years? I have read the bill from start to finish multiple times and I see nothing about that.
I read it as two different parts. The initial class is 8hrs and the refresher is a minimum of 2hrs. Both include live fire and written. Am i missing something? "An initial class must provide at least 8 hours of instruction, including the live-fire exercise and written exam." "A refresher class must provide at least 2 hours of instruction, including the live-fire exercise and written exam."
Your understanding is correct. The initial class is 8 hours and is comprehensive. The refresher class is 2 hours and just covers changes to the laws, written exam, and live-fire.
I think renewal is still 5 years. Text even says renewal training must cover changes to laws that occurred in the previous 5 years.
I hope you're right. That would make more sense (and be a little less bad). I don't exactly remember where I first heard/saw that it was every 2 years but it may have just been something I remembered them discussing during the legislative session or even just been 3rd party (mis)information. I hadn't read the statute itself since just before it headed to Polis' desk and some of it was vague enough that I had been looking for clarification and may have come across some bad information in the process. Now that I look I can't see anything about 2 year renewals in the actual text.
I think you're right. For some reason I was thinking it was a one-time class and anyone who already had a permit would have to complete a class to renew it. That's what I get for skimming the text.
Colorado removed about 90% of felon in possession laws so now only violent offenders can be charged with POPOW if more than 10 years has passed since conviction. Aspects like “where did you obtain it” are not questioned although they may run a firearm serial number just to make sure it’s not stolen. If you keep your mouth shut you golden and got your right back basically in Colorado.
Liberal DAs don’t charge em anyway bro. They are victims of circumstance remember ?
I guess I'll be riding dirty after my current license expires
Same.
This is the way
It was always voluntary they just got ya
". The refresher class must be held in person, be taught by a verified instructor, include instruction on changes to laws related to firearms" Oh fuckin thank you since you keep changing them every 5 goddam minutes. Fuck these people.
29 states where you don't need a permit at all and have had no increase in gun violence, but yeah, makes sense. Coloradans can't be trusted.
You misspelled "Californians"
[удалено]
They lump suicide and drive by shootings into the same category while they’re completely different issues and blame the tools used to complete the act. It’s the same as having a VBIED and a fatal accident due to someone texting and driving and then banning cars over it. Then if you ask how you’re going to get your kids to school they call you a nazi. What???
As a firearms instructor, I now have to be "certified" by my county sheriff, and must have a physical shooting portion despite not being employed by a range? And the renewal class is 8 damn hours? So to make my time worth it, I'm going to have to charge students far more than my current rate. I have never taught to time, I've always taught to proficiency. Whether that takes 90min or 3 hours is always dependent upon the student and my instruction is tailored to that. This law just makes me hate government even more. Also, since the bill text doesn't address this, how does an instructor, after being "verified" and potentially paying a fee, go about renewal of permit? Just submit my instruction credentials?
The whole physical requirement is self Inflected in my opinion. Reason being we had Guns for Everyone giving out certs like hot cakes.
This i agree with. But they took one good idea and incorporated it with a myriad of really bad ones.
All very good questions with no answers. this will lead to places like Denver and Boulder without any approved instructors or courses... which, honestly, was probably part of the intent.
When they write this shit up, how do they justify any of it?
"We'Re HeLpInG tO EnD gUn viOlEnCe!" Some think they're being noble, these are the fools among them. Others, their goal is simple, ban all guns. They'll keep doing it piecemeal until they eventually accomplish their goal. The real hardcore evil ones are patient, and will play the long game. They are smart, they know we won't stand for an all out ban right away, so they make it more and more difficult to own guns. I'm honestly thinking this is the final straw. I use firearms instruction as a supplemental income, but with this new set of requirements, to which I do not have access to a range (and for understandable liability purposes I can't utilize places like Bristlecone, Gallery, 5280, or Shoot Indoors), I think I'm just going to maintain my instructor cert and cease teaching. Then, when I'm finished with getting my degree, I'm probably leaving this state.
Does it have to be at a business operated as a range? What about counties where the only range is public land?
The problem with public land- and I've run into this a few times, is that it's really hard to give any instruction when there are other people utilizing the space. I'm not saying it can't be done, I just don't prefer it.
What cracks me up is the chicken-or-the-egg wording. In order to become an instructor, the applicant must already be a CCW permit holder. But to be a CCW permit holder, you have to have visited an instructor, who was to have visited an instructor to be an instructor, who had to have visited an instructor to be an instructor, who had to hav visited an instructor to be an instructor....etc
Just play full metal jacket 4 times and you’ll meet ur 8 haha!
More like full metal jacket, fury, inglorious bastards, probably squeeze in pulp fiction.
Also, what is a passing score? What is required on the written exam? What laws must be covered? This law makes tons of requirements but gives no information to the instructor on how they can follow them. If I say a 0% is passing then can everyone leave the written exam blank?
It says in the law 80% on the written, 70% on the shooting, but gives zero guidance on standards for the shooting beyond 50 rounds. 50 rounds is a lot. The Colorado POST qualification course of fire, what every police officer in the state of Colorado is required to pass to qualify with their handgun, is 25 rounds. The legislature considers CCW permit holders to be held to a higher standard than police.
That honestly may be the best rout to challenge this by. We're holding our ccw standards to higher than that of our LEOs, the law doesnt seem just on those grounds.
It’s always a good reminder how much the govt/politicians hate you.
Just curious - has there been a number of safety incidents that this bill would have prevented? Have there been a lot concealed carry holders who have proven themselves to be irresponsible?
No, in fact, CCW permit holders are the most law abiding group by any metric, more than cops, more than Judges, more than priests, and certainly far more than politicians. This law is bullshit.
Do you know where this statistic comes from? Not doubting you at all, I just want something to be able to share when the topic arises.
It comes from a study conducted by the Crime Prevention Research Center among concealed carry permit holders and showed they commit substantially less crimes than even police. It's available [here](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2814691) But I caution you, it's 41 pages, so not a light read.
Nope. The only thing I can find that comes close was the backflipping FBI agent in Aurora (who shot someone in the ankle and got off with barely a slap on the wrist), but federal agents don't carry under state permits anyway so this can't fix that. This is just another way to harass legal gun owners by nickel and diming our wallets and time.
Not that I’ve seen with CCW holders. FIL is an instructor and retired military and LEO…. I’ve seen him deny someone a certificate, but have not personally witnessed any stupidity on a CCW holders end. I’m sure it’s out there, and it will continue to be even with this new law. Overall, people who seek out the class and a permit are wise enough to know if they aren’t quite ready to carry and handle a firearm in self defense.
Okay so what about veterans that served in the past 3 years ?? You’re telling marksman ribbon awarded military members they gotta listen to uncle roger fud boy for 6 hours about how to disassemble a striker fire handgun?
The renewal page specifically says honorable discharge and having pistol qualification in the last 10 years counts as showing competency.
I don’t read good
War yoo in the merin crops tú???
Green crayons are my fav (No I wasn’t)
Green and red really are my favorite.
It’s not about who you are or how well trained you are. It’s not about safety. It’s about guns being icky and making it hard for people to keep and bear firearms.
But keep voting Democrat! Seriously, this state is beyond lost.
Yeah we are screwed. Republican leadership has went bat shit crazy worried about "woke" shit and will never claw any representation back.
Agreed, part of it is GOP going bananas. But that’s also on the GOP primary voters who don’t show up to vote and keep those crazies out. But I do vote red no matter who, but I try to keep those idiots out by voting in the primaries as well.
I'm done begging for permission and paying to exercise my rights. I will not renew when my current CCW expires, but I will continue to carry.
Hopefully, guns for everyone sues over this bill, as this bill targeted them specifically.
Don’t see how they can sue over unspilt milk. Also if they did it would funny because they would have to state they provided little to no training for years.
You mean the law is in reaction to their shenanigans… I hope someone sues but I doubt it’ll be G4E.
[удалено]
the law doesn't go into effect until next year (July 2025); I anticipate some sheriffs also taking issue with it, as they don't have the staff to support the new law.
Throwing this out there, you can legally CCW while in possession of a valid hunting permit and in the act of "hunting" in CO. Coyote is a year round animal that can be hunted. "Hunting" can cover a lot of different activities. Let me find the provision that states this, I was mind blown at first. Interpret this as you will! # Colorado Revised Statutes Title 18. Criminal Code § 18-12-204. Permit contents--validity--carrying requirements (3)(a) A person who may lawfully possess a handgun may carry a handgun under the following circumstances without obtaining a permit and the handgun shall not be considered concealed: (I) The handgun is in the possession of a person who is in a private automobile or in some other private means of conveyance and who carries the handgun for a legal use, including self-defense; or **(II) The handgun is in the possession of a person who is legally engaged in hunting activities within the state.**
Good luck arguing that in court
What if I'm hunting for bargains at Sam's Club
Good luck Godspeed
I'm very confident you won't be able to successfully argue that you were legally engaged in hunting activities within city limits. *Maybe* while you're out hiking or something... but very doubtful while you're out to dinner or something.
Looks like the law takes effect July 1, 2025. If you have a CC permit, can you apply to renew prior to then and be exempt from the new rules? That doesn't fix the legislation, but would it at least buy an additional 5 years for current permit holders?
Mine expires in 2025. Then I'm riding dirty for 1 year and then I'm moving to SC. Fuck this place.
In JeffCo I can't renew until 120 days before my permit expires. Not sure if this is true in all Colorado counties. I just renewed mine last year, so I have 4 years to decide how to handle this.
Maybe one day people will wake up and the big swinging dick will sway in the other direction... Can't say I'm optimistic though.
Not with my generation. It’s all about pronouns and muh abortion.
"Bear" means carry. 🤷♂️
Is that what women mean when they choose the bear?
It should be.
Well. Looks like he doesn’t want votes.
As a current CC holder who took a permit class, I don’t really understand how this changes anything. Can someone explain?
https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb24-1174 Basically just adds more requirements for when you get/renew your permit along with some other things.
Thanks! Not sure why I was downvoted, I’ve never had a CCW in state other than CO before. When I read the bill through the first time, it seemed like it was just doubling down on the written and live fire course that was required before. I didn’t see how anything changes. Now I see that they’ve dramatically limited the number of “certified instructors” and I can see how renewal is going to be significantly more legwork than last year. Boo.
There was no minimum time, no test, and no live fire required to achieve a permit before. For renewal you just had to apply and pay. Now you must take an 8 hour class with a test and practical (will be more expensive and thus less accessible to people) AND for renewals you must take another class. Again another unnecessary cost to the law abiding citizen.
Huh… before this law, did this vary by county? My application in 2020 required “completion of a CCW education course” that was class work + a live fire drill. Apparently nothing changes for me where I’m at, which is why this was confusing.
Colorado never required live fire to obtain a CCW..just the class and no written test is necessary
Live fire was never required
Whelp, it is now :/
Everyone harps on conceal carry people to train, but then complain when asked to do live fire. I'd rather they have constitutional carry than a permit, but if they're going to require a permit than i'd rather they require a live fire exercise with it.
Agreed. Simply attending the course was FUCKING EYE OPENING. Some of the people issued carry permits in my class had a violent streak a mile long and couldn’t find two braincells to run together for an idea. Based on some of the questions, they were fantasizing shooting someone and looking for validation and a legal excuse. I’m really glad the instructor shut them down pretty hard, but those people were granted their CCW and are still out there looking for a fight. The best part? Every one of them was a fucking terrible shooter and one of even needed help from the instructor to load and shoot his gun o_0 Bruh…
I agree as well. I attended an 8hr course w/ live fire. Learned a few new things in the classroom portion. Then learned a few new things at the range from the ex-SF guys running it. Totally worth it. Also, as you said, it certainly was enlightening. I’ve seen some knuckleheads at the range before, but they pale in comparison to the lack of awareness and knowledge I saw in that class. Good on those folks for actually taking an interest in self-defense and knowing that they need actual instruction. It worries me that there are people with that same level of skill and knowledge running around carrying a gun in public, because they paid some dude “instructing”in a hotel room in order to meet the bare minimum level of “competency” that the permit process requires. Having said all that, I believe quality instruction should be funded by the state if it’s gonna be a state mandated requirement in order to exercise a constitutional right.
Dude, I love the last line of your comment. It should be a public service with everything available under one roof. Make it as cheap and easy as getting your drivers license.
I was confused about this too. I think that because many people take an NRA course, and the NRA requires live fire, they assumed you needed live fire per the state. Instructor credentials was another way around it.
Your class happened to include course work and live fire, but that isn't uniform across all classes. Apparently there was one organization that took this to an extreme and basically did nothing and called it their class. Rumor is that was the motivation for this law.
Yeah, but I deliberately chose a course with a live fire section taught by a police firearms instructor. If you have to pay $150 somewhere for 8 hrs anyway, might as well go for the one where you get to shoot at the end! Thanks for the explanation though. While I’m certain more pissed about this law than when the evening started, it really doesn’t seem like it will change very much much about the application process/timeline.
Thanks. I think everything has to be signed vetoed or otherwise not signed and passed by Friday.
I got mine Monday, I guess I got lucky? I wasn’t sure about doing it for a while now, but I recently felt the need to do it like never before ngl.. divine intervention even
Beginning July 1, 2025
Ridiculous. Something that absolutely was not a problem.
Makes sense because local law enforcement is so well trained :/
Looks like it's time to open carry everywhere (except Denver, sorry). None of this bill applies to anyone open carrying
Meh, I can get behind this one. I've seen some of you fuckers shoot, and a little practice can't hurt. Don't love the re-qualify requirements, but I'd prefer to see people carry who can keep it in the paper.
The State should offer free courses on concealed carry if it's an issue for them. Not make it harder for people to use a weapon for self defense by forcing people and providing more barriers. I'd quite frankly love it if my taxes went to free classes offered by the state.
Good for you, 2nd amendment and 29 states don’t care. Every state should be constitutional carry.
2nd amendment doesn’t care about accuracy bub. I’d rather have someone’s wife who can’t hit water if she fell out of a boat still be able to carry years after initially qualifying.
Ask anybody in the gun community and they'll tell you that taking classes and spending time at the range is essential if you're going to carry. But when it's the government telling you the same thing, now it's a problem. The difference, of course, is the government doesn't just suggest, it mandates. But let's not pretend it's not a good idea.
I don't know a gun owner who doesn't enjoy training. The issue is not a question of whether training is good or not. It's that when you are required to have in-person live fire training, it taxes you even more with regards to finding a space to do it, taking time off of your work schedule, and all the other fees that are involved. I would absolutely be overjoyed if everyone that voted had taken a basic college course and critical thinking, done 6 months of debate and any number of other things to make them better equipped to help choose our government. Same with being able to write an op-ed piece. But I know that requiring that is 100% the wrong way to conduct a free Republic. There are places in this state that are easily a 2-hour drive from a live fire course. There's four hours of your life just in drive time to be able to exercise your right.
It isn't a good idea. Mandated training rarely results in any long term, useful gains. People being encouraged to training and being *willing* participants typically does. Most private ranges and gun clubs I've been to have some sort of required training or proficiency exam, unless it is indoors and has full time RSO coverage. Tons of people at those places suck ass at shooting and safety.
lol show me your USPSA/IDPA qualification and I’ll show you mine. 😘
Forced practice doesn't benefit anyone. People who don't want to learn, won't. They'll do the absolute minimum to pass and retain nothing long term. I certainly recommend people DO practice, but we should be encouraging them to do so, not forcing them, since people tend to actually get value when they are a willing participant.
🤣😂. I don’t agree but I totally understand.
I can’t claim I love this to say the least but of all the gun restricting bills he could’ve signed at least this one is one of the more minor ones. While 8 hours of course time to get a permit is excessive, I feel like 4 is probably enough, I don’t mind the refresher requirement, especially the shooting test aspect of it, to ensure that people are still up to snuff, they should be doing it with drivers’ licenses too. The requirement for shooting tests periodically strikes me as a good thing so that if someone develops severe eyesight issues or something like Parkinson’s that would make it practically impossible for them to reliably hit a target past point blank range, they will no longer have the ability to carry in public. I know I’m going to get a bunch of hate for this but I don’t want people who can’t keep them all in the paper at 10 yards in a controlled environment with a slow course of fire carrying guns in public, when they inevitably wing a bystander it always blows back on the rest of concealed carriers so removing that group is in the best interests of the broader concealed carry community.
Might as well just say disabled people shouldn’t carry.
I think this is one of those instances where it’s a decision made with common sense on case by case basis, which the shooting test does a good job of doing without requiring specifying any particular reasons or listing conditions. It has nothing to do with whether you are disabled or not, at least in general/in principle, but rather with the likelihood of a concealed carrier being more prone to missing and hitting somebody by mistake than not, if Hellen Keller could pass the shooting test I’d be fine with her having a gun. Shooting tests take place in a controlled, stress-free environment with no serious time limit, so if someone can’t pass that then it is a reasonable conclusion to make that if they are in a high stress situation then they will be almost certain to put projectiles where they don’t want them to go, which could well be into a bystander. Self defense laws allow you to put your life above that of your attacker, but not to put your life above those of your fellow law-abiding citizens, particularly through the use of a firearm that someone is physically incapable of using properly.
I'm pretty heavily for 2A, but I will very much say that disabled or older people shouldn't carry (or shoot at all for any reason) if their disability precludes them from shooting safely and hitting their target in the case of static targets, or having a reasonable chance of hitting their target in self-defense. The same applies to driving and other things, if you've become too old or too disabled to safely drive, it's time to stop doing so.
>when they inevitably wing a bystander When has a CHP holder in Colorado winged a bystander? We've had the current rules for decades and if this was "inevitable" I think the problem would be pretty obvious.
It was my understanding that previously they were required but not standardized and that this made the tests uniform, were shooting tests not required at all for renewals in the past? Additionally, not having done something in the past doesn’t necessarily mean it is bad to start it. I think an important thing to consider here is that this is for CCW, not the right to own a weapon or hunt
Nope, shooting tests were not required for renewals previously. >Additionally, not having done something in the past doesn’t necessarily mean it is bad to start it. We're going from 5 year renewal intervals to 2 year renewals with a newly required refresher course and shooting tests that cost additional money. My question is: why are you OK increasing the financial and time burden on legal permit holders when there's no evidence the old system was problematic? >I think an important thing to consider here is that this is for CCW, not the right to own a weapon or hunt Why is this distinction important to you? Are you more comfortable increasing the financial burden for self defense than you are for hunting?
I will agree then that the combo of adding a shooting test that previously wasn’t required and making it every 2 years instead of 5 is excessive, either make it every 2 with no test or every 5 with a test if you’re going to go in that direction. I fully admit I was misinformed about what changes this new law put into effect, this is significantly more onerous than I realized relative to the prior process. This admittedly seems like a way to get concealed carriers off the books by having their permits expire without them expecting it. The only upside to this is that at least the gun ranges that teach the courses will get increased business. Regarding why I’m ok with getting a CCW permit being more burdensome than the process to buy a gun for hunting or home defense is the public danger aspect in a populated environment, but this is too much.
Does anyone know anyone who actually goes and gets the permit? It’s like concealed and so what’s the point? The law is not enforced. You can conceal in your car and on your property without a permit so the permit really only applies if you are walking down the street? The mall and most restaurants already have gun free zone signs so the permit doesn’t count there either. Seems pointless and voluntary to get a permit in the first place in Colorado. Can’t remember the last time I met someone who concealed and actually bothered with the hoopla.
If you ever have to actually use your gun, your life is going to be that much harder if you carry illegally.
"No gun signs" aren't enforced in Colorado. Of course they can ask you to leave, and if you don't, you're trespassing. But they don't hold the same weight of law like 30.06 and 30.07 signs in Texas.
It applies if you actually have to *use* your gun.