< PREVIOUS ] [ 1999 Index ] [ Ed Quillen HOME ] [ SEARCH ] [ NEXT >
By now, you'd think that our General Assembly would have figured out what to do with Colorado's concealed-carry law. As it is, your right to carry a firearm is embedded in the state constitution, but only if the firearm is visible.
If you want to carry a concealed gun legally, then you need a permit from a police chief or county sheriff. In some counties, like El Paso and Larimer, the sheriff readily grants permits; in others, it's almost impossible to get a concealed-weapons permit.
This strikes some state legislators as a fine exercise in local control -- the sheriff is accountable to voters, and presumably knows what policy is best for his venue.
Other legislators see it a crazy quilt of arbitrary regulations created by the whims of various sheriffs. They've pushed for a uniform statewide policy, and the ensuing debates have enlivened this session, while not providing much illumination.
For instance, the proponents of concealed-carry have
argued, sometimes in correspondence directed my way, that
there is a legion of street predators
who will focus
on any gun-free zones (schools, parks, arenas) and commit
gruesome assaults against law-abiding citizens who would be
ready, willing and able to protect everybody if they just
had concealed weapons at hand.
If that is so, why aren't we enduring such massacres now in Colorado, especially in Denver where it's almost impossible to get a concealed-carry permit?
Another myth is that concealed-carry is a great way to fight crime, and to that end, we see lots of statistics, followed by attacks and rebuttals.
In truth, we'll never know, and it's really not relevant
anyway. We're talking about a civil right here, the right
to keep and bear arms, a right retained by the people in
the U.S. Constitution, which does not say anything about
the right of the states and other jurisdictions to
maintain militias to keep the unarmed population in
line.
With that in mind, let us ponder several approaches that our legislature might consider. Just last month, I proposed that the state outlaw all concealed weapons, but after sober reflection, I now realize that this would not be practical. But there are other possibilities.
· The Vermont Plan. Vermont places no restrictions on concealed weapons. Any citizen can carry a firearm in purse, shoulder holster, backpack, etc. Vermont's violent crime rate is very low -- only North Dakota and New Hampshire are safer -- so this certainly doesn't increase violent crime.
This would simplify matters -- no more permits, no more convoluted definitions about what is or isn't concealed, no more extended legislative arguments.
As a friend pointed out, under the state constitution
now, I have an absolute right to carry a weapon on my hip.
If I put my coat on, how does that make me more
dangerous?
He has a good point. But I can see one drawback: it
would allow the police to kill at will, since they could
always say we thought he was going for a concealed
gun.
Also, it could require amending the state
constitution, and voters might not go for it.
· The Montana Plan. When Congress established a national speed limit of 55 mph, Montana's legislature complied, but set the fine at $5.
In Colorado now, toting a concealed weapon without a permit is a class 2 misdemeanor, with a maximum penalty of 12 months in jail and a $1,000 fine. The legislature could make it a petty offense and set the maximum penalty at $5 with no jail time, community service or court costs.
· The Chlouber Plan. My state senator, Ken Chlouber of Leadville, has been agitating for years to change the concealed-carry law because he believes sheriffs are too arbitrary in deciding who gets permits and who doesn't.
But in debate last week, he said that the list of permitees should be closed to the public -- in other words, a secret document which allows sheriffs to operate without public oversight in a matter that the legislature has otherwise deemed of public interest.
That means sheriffs could be as arbitrary as they please, with the blessing of the state legislature. They could grant permits only to campaign contributors or deny them to minorities, and who would know? Chlouber says he wants to eliminate this arbitrary power, and yet secrecy would enhance it.
It's a brilliant piece of politics -- on the surface, it pleases gun owners, while in effect, it preserves the status quo or even makes matters worse for gun owners -- and one must admire Chlouber for coming up with it.
No matter what the legislature does, though, I doubt it will change much in Colorado. As it is, unless you're at a nudist camp, you don't know whether the person next to you is armed or not, no matter what the law says. Liberalizing the concealed-carry law won't change that, so why not?
And let us count our blessings. The more time the legislature spends arguing about concealed weapons, the less time it has for its traditional work of subsidizing millionaires, advancing real-estate development and outlawing the lifestyles of the poor.
< PREVIOUS ] [ 1999 Index ] [ Ed Quillen HOME ] [ SEARCH ] [ NEXT >