Representative Shane Sandridge introduced a bill that would have essentially extended the Castle Doctrine to businesses, however the bill was allowed to die in the State, Veterans, and Military Affairs Committee, along a party line vote.

HB20-1168 Deadly Force Against Intruder At A Business

quote:

Originally posted by Modern Day Savage:

quote:

Originally posted by Storm:
MDS,
Thanks for keeping us all up on this.

-Storm

Storm! I was growing concerned about you as I hadn't seen you post in this thread in a while. I hope you are doing well.

I'm happy to do what little I can...but unfortunately my time is limited and I can't spend the time that I would like to to stay on top of these important issues or do them the justice that they deserve. If I could find a way to generate a living and pay the bills while doing this I would stay on top of this issue 24/7/365.

Thanks for your concern. That's kind of you. I'm good. I've just been busy with other things, and have minimizing my exposure to political things, for a while.

I hope you are doing well, yourself.

* Legislative Alert *

Please take the time to contact your elected reps. and urge them to oppose this bill.

HB 20-1278 was introduced by three Democrat sponsors, and is an extension of the 2013 Domestic Violence law that prohibits those accused of DV from owning or possessing firearms or ammunition.

The bill essentially mirrors the Red Flag ERPO law device in severing a Respondent's (note the same term used in Red Flag) 2A rights after an accusation has led to a DV order issuance, but before the charge has been adjudicated, and the severance lasts for the duration of the order. The mere act of an accusation, even a false accusation, is enough to trigger not only a loss of rights but the accompanying expenses of legal fees and transfer fees...to say nothing of the loss of privacy and security.

There are several aspects to the bill that are deeply troubling, but chief among them are that it creates a de facto firearms registry by forcing the Respondent to not only list the number, type, and location of all firearms and ammo she or he owns on both an affidavit and a firearms information form, in a court proceeding with not only judicial and LE reps. present, but others attending the hearing, including others charged with crimes, and the documents becomes a matter of record, maintained by the Sheriffs office. Additionally, should the Respondent refuse to comply, a search warrant will be issued without probably cause.

I'm still working my way through the actual bill wording but here is the bill summary.

HB20-1278 Protection Orders Issued Against Domestic Abusers

BILL SUMMARY

Upon the issuance of a protection order, the court shall:

-Require the person to state in court or complete an affidavit in court stating the number of firearms in the person's immediate possession or control and the location of all firearms in the person's immediate possession or control;

-Require the person to complete a firearm information form that states the number of firearms in the person's immediate possession or control or subject to the person's immediate possession or control, the type of each firearm, and the location of each firearm;

-and Transmit a copy of the protection order and the firearm information form to the sheriff of the county of the person's residence

The bill prohibits any full and truthful statements made to the court regarding the number of firearms in the person's immediate possession or control or subject to the person's immediate possession or control and the location of the firearms from being used against the person in any other civil or criminal proceedings.

The bill excludes legal holidays and weekends from the current time frame a person has to relinquish a firearm. The bill allows a court to grant a person an additional 24 hours to relinquish a firearm if the person is unable to comply with the required time frame of relinquishment.

Current law requires a person to either sell or transfer possession of the firearm, arrange for the storage of the firearm by a law enforcement agency, or sell or transfer the firearm to a private party who may legally possess the firearm. The bill requires a private party to complete a firearms acknowledgment form that informs the private party of the relevant state and federal laws, lists the consequences of noncompliance, and asks if the private party is able to legally possess a firearm. The bill prohibits the person from transferring the firearm to a private party living in the same residence as the person at the time of transfer.

The bill requires the court to conduct a hearing to ensure the person has complied with the relinquishment requirements. Failure to appear at the hearing constitutes a violation of the protection order, and the court may issue a warrant for the person's arrest or a search warrant of the person's residence.

The bill requires a person who does not possess a firearm at the time the order is issued to complete a declaration of nonpossession form in court. If the person possessed a firearm at the time of the qualifying incident giving rise to the duty to relinquish the firearm but sold or transferred the firearm to a private party prior to the issuance of the protection order, the person shall disclose the sale or transfer in court.

The bill requires a federally licensed firearms dealer, law enforcement agency, or private party to issue a signed affidavit memorializing the sale or transfer of the firearm.

The bill allows a law enforcement agency to enter into an agreement with any other law enforcement agency to assume the duties of the sheriff. If a law enforcement agency elects to store a firearm, the bill allows the law enforcement agency to seek a matching incentive fee from the department of public safety on an annual basis in an amount equal to the total amount charged by the agency for providing storage of a firearm. The matching fee must be used to maintain or increase firearm storage capacity. The bill requires a sheriff who elects to store a firearm to obtain a search warrant prior to testing or examining the firearm to facilitate any criminal investigation or prosecution.

The bill prohibits a private party from returning a firearm to the person until the private party receives a written statement of the results of the background check conducted by the bureau authorizing the return of the firearm to the person.

Current law requires a copy of the written receipt and the written statement of the background check to be filed with the court as proof of relinquishment. The bill requires the signed affidavit to be filed with the court instead of the receipt. Both the signed affidavit and written statement are only available for inspection by the court and the parties to the proceeding.

A federally licensed firearms dealer, law enforcement agency, or private party that elects to store a firearm is not civilly liable for any resulting damages to the firearm, as long as such damage did not result from the willful and wrongful act or gross negligence of the person or agency storing the firearm.


My understanding is that the Colorado Sheriffs Association has come out against this bill and El Paso County Sheriff Bill Elder sent his Chief of Staff, Janet Huffor, to testify against the bill last Tuesday. During her testimony Democrat Leslie Herod (first black LGBTQXYZ rep. in the state legislature), reportedly was disrespectful to Huffor in the manner she challenged the testimony, and made the assertion that law enforcement is responsible for the increase in Domestic Violence. She was so disrespectful in fact that Sheriff Elder is angry at the way his office's representative was treated in the legislature and a complaint has been filed with the House.

Sheriff Elder and Chief of Staff Janet Huffor were interviewed on the Jeff Crank Show about both the disrespectful way in which her testimony was challenged as well as their concerns about HB20-1278. Sound bytes of the actual confrontation between Herod and Huffor during the testimony are played during the interview, but they are played out of sequence.

The 30 minute interview begins @ 1:35:35.

Jeff Crank Show 2-29-20

The Gazette somewhat 'white washed' the confrontation between Herod and Huffor.

[Note: picture and hyperlinks at linked article]

El Paso County sheriff complains about lawmaker's grilling of chief of staff

By Joey Bunch Colorado Politics Joey Bunch Joey Bunch Colorado Politics senior political reporter Feb 29, 2020 Updated Feb 29, 2020

El Paso County Sheriff Bill Elder is steamed at state Rep. Leslie Herod over how she handled his chief of staff during a legislative hearing this week.

He claimed the debate violated the House's workplace conduct rules.

"This is a public hearing, one meant to let people have a say in legislation," he wrote in the letter to House Speaker KC Becker, obtained by Colorado Politics. "For Representative Herod to use it to publicly humiliate a member of this state's law enforcement community the way she did is unacceptable and a clear violation of the House workplace expectation and policies.

"This is NOT the first or only incident with Representative Herod over the last couple of years, but this certainly was the most egregious."

During an eight-hour hearing on a handful of justice bills before the House Judiciary Committee Tuesday night, Herod pressed Janet Huffor, Elder's chief of staff and legislative liaison, on the source of some of her information.

They were debating House Bill 1278, legislation that would require those suspected of domestic violence from disclosing how many guns they own and have in their immediate control.

Huffor spoke on behalf of the El Paso County Sheriff's Office and for the County Sheriff's of Colorado. They opposed the bill because it did not provide enough guidance on how law enforcement would manage the storage or sale of firearms that are confiscated.

She said some people would have "pallets of ammo" that would be costly to store and most sheriffs do not want to do it. Huffor said El Paso County averages about 15 domestic violence arrests a day.

"It's rare someone has just one weapon," she told the committee. "It's more in the 20 to 30 or more (range)."

Herod asked Huffor, "Can you tell me where you found that stat, that El Paso County gun owners have 20 to 30 weapons?"

Huffor replied, "I'm making an estimation based on some of the average gun owners I know in El Paso County. I'm giving you that as an average. I'm not pulling the statistic from anywhere."

Herod said in the meeting that she found that to be a "gross exaggeration, and I think it's irresponsible to state that to this committee without any kind of evidence backing that up."

She told Colorado Politics Friday night that she used to live in El Paso County and comes from a military family, many of whom are gun owners. "They have nowhere near that many weapons," Herod said.

Becker said in a text Friday night that she had no comment on the matter.

Herod is an influential Denver Democrat who has been a leading social justice reformer in the Legislature. In his letter, he called out "Herod's flagrantly disrespectful and disgraceful form of political thuggery and intimidation."

Reached in San Francisco, just before she was to speak to The Justice Collaborative about her work, Herod said he was surprised Elder was so thin-skinned.

"These kinds of tough discussions happen every day at the Legislature," she said. "Why am I the one who gets a complaint, and it's sent to the press?"

She conceded her relationship with Elder has been strained in the past over policies, but she said it wasn't personal.

On her comments at the hearing, Herod said, "I'm not going to accept people who aren't being truthful."

Jacqueline Kirby, a spokeswoman for the El Paso County Sheriff's Office, confirmed the authenticity of the letter, but declined to comment beyond what it states.

Contact Joey Bunch at joey.bunch@coloradopolitics.com or follow him on Twitter @joeybunch.

Edited: To correct a spelling mistake and rephrase for clarity.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Modern Day Savage,

Note that the HB20-1271 Repeal Red Flag And Amend 72-hour Hold is scheduled for a hearing in the House Judiciary committee on Thursday March 12th.

Please contact your elected reps to support this bill.

Yesterday, 4 Democrats introduced a safe storage of firearms bill, that includes jail time for gun owners who violate the law. The gun control group Moms Demand Action is rallying for the bill and the NRA has come out in opposition to it.

HB20-1355 Secure Storage Of Firearms

I haven't had a chance to work my way through the bill text yet but here is the bill summary:

The bill creates the offense of unlawful storage of a firearm if a person stores a firearm in a manner that the person knows, or should know:

-That a juvenile can gain access to the firearm without the permission of the juvenile's parent or guardian; or

-A resident of the premises is ineligible to possess a firearm under state or federal law. Unlawful storage of a firearm is a class 2 misdemeanor.

The bill requires licensed firearms dealers to provide with each firearm, at the time of a firearm sale or transfer, a locking device capable of securing the firearm. Transferring a firearm without a locking device is an unclassified misdemeanor punishable by a maximum $500 fine.

The bill requires the state court administrator to annually report to the general assembly about the number of charges related to safe firearms storage, and the disposition of those charges.

The bill requires the department of public health and environment to develop and implement a firearms storage education campaign to educate the public about the safe storage of firearms and state requirements related to firearms safety and storage.

The bill creates the firearms safe storage education campaign fund (fund) in the state treasury. A voluntary contribution designation line for the fund will appear on the state individual income tax return form (form) for the 5 income tax years following the year that the executive director of the department of revenue certifies to the revisor of statutes that there is a space available on the form and the fund is next in the queue.

A Colorado Sun article on the bill.
Note: There are pictures and hyperlinks at the linked website article.

Colorado gun owners who don’t safely store their weapons could face jail time under new bill

One of the measures would make it a Class 2 misdemeanor for someone who fails to properly secure their firearms in homes with children. A companion bill would mandate gun owners report lost or stolen guns to police.

MAR 6, 2020 12:36PM MST

Jesse Paul
@jesseapaul
The Colorado Sun — jesse@coloradosun.com

Colorado gun owners who don’t lock up or properly secure their weapons in homes where there are children or adults prohibited from accessing guns would be subject to jail time under legislation introduced Friday afternoon at the state Capitol.

House Bill 1355 — a so-called safe storage measure — would also require gun shops to distribute trigger or cable locks with every sale or transfer of a firearm. The legislation was reviewed by The Colorado Sun ahead of its introduction.

“The goal for us is to create as safe of an environment as we can in the house if there is a firearm present,” state Rep. Kyle Mullica, a Northglenn Democrat who is leading the push for the measure, said in an interview. “The goal is not to necessarily punish people. The goal is to create that safe environment and to prevent accidents from happening.”

The bill would bring Colorado in line with other states that have safe storage laws on the books, including Connecticut, California and New York. Even Texas has statutes aimed at keeping firearms out of the hands of children.

Mullica said he doesn’t think his legislation will stop mass shootings. “I don’t think this is that magic wand, unfortunately.”

But he does believe the bill could prevent teen suicides and accidental shootings involving toddlers. Studies have shown that suicide attempts using guns are often the most successful, so limiting access to at-risk young people could hinder their attempts to kill themselves.

The Colorado bill is expected to be the most significant piece of gun control legislation debated in the legislature this year. A companion measure, House Bill 1356, would impose penalties for gun owners who fail to notify law enforcement within 48 hours if a weapon is lost or stolen.

The National Rifle Association opposes both bills, saying they would be a burden on gun owners.

“On safe storage, you’re basically criminalizing a law-abiding gun owner’s right to self protection,” said Greg Brophy, a gun rights activist and former Colorado state senator who has lobbied on behalf of the gun industry. “On the mandatory reporting bill, I think this is probably the only instance I can think of where a victim of a crime becomes a criminal if they don’t go and do something after the fact. And that’s just wrong.”

Mullica, a father and gun owner himself, argues any added legal burdens in his bill are a small price to pay for community safety. The legislation requires gun owners to use a safe, trigger lock or cable lock to secure their weapons.

“If somebody feels like that’s burdensome to go back and forth to their safe every night if they want to protect their family, me, personally, I’ll take that burden to make sure that my children are safe,” he said. “I think the safety of our children is worth that little burden that you may have.”

Mullica’s bill would require Colorado gun stores to post a notice about the state’s new safe-storage laws and also mandate that public health officials create a campaign to educate firearm owners on how to keep their weapons out of the wrong hands.

If a gun owner has a firearm on their person or within arms reach, then they don’t have to lock them up, the bill says. The measure also clarifies that if a child accesses an unsecured firearm for reasons of self defense or to keep predators away from livestock — i.e. coyotes trying to eat chickens — then a crime hasn’t been committed.

Finally, gun owners who keep an unsecured weapon in a home where a parent or guardian has given their child permission to have access to a firearm would not be subject to sanction under the legislation.

Anyone in violation of the proposed safe storage law could be charged with a Class 2 misdemeanor, which carried up to 364 days in jail and a fine.

The stolen or lost firearm reporting legislation carries a petty offense punishable by a $25 fine. Second and subsequent offenses would be a Class 3 misdemeanor, which carries a sentence of up to six months in jail.

“This is an awareness bill. It’s about educating gun owners to know where their guns are so we can keep the firearms out of the hands of kinds,” said Rep. Sonya Jaquez Lewis, a Boulder County Democrat who is championing the stolen and lost guns legislation.

A handful of other states also mandate that gun owners report lost or stolen guns, but many give them more time to do so.

“The quicker that firearm owners can let law enforcement know that their firearm is missing, the easier it is for law enforcement to track the gun,” Lewis said.

Rep. Tom Sullivan, a Centennial Democrat and gun control activist whose son, Alex, was killed in the 2012 Aurora theater shooting also is working on Lewis’ legislation.

“We need to define what safe storage is,” Mullica said. “I think overwhelmingly, the majority of gun owners in Colorado safely store their firearms. But some may have a different definition of what safe storage is . We need to have that definition just so we can make sure that we are being consistent and that these firearms are safely being stored.”

If it is signed into law, the safe storage legislation would go into effect on July 1. The lost and stolen firearm measure would go into effect on Aug. 5.

There are no Republicans prime sponsors of the bills, which are expected to receive strong pushback at the Capitol from conservatives and gun rights groups.

Edited: To correct a format error that occurred during the copy/ paste function, for ease in reading.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Modern Day Savage,

The companion bill to the safe storage bill was also introduced by 3 Democrats.

Again, I'm trying to find the time to read this bill.

HB20-1356 Lost Or Stolen Firearms-Concerning the responsibility of an individual firearm owner to report an unaccounted-for firearm.

Bill Summary:

The bill requires an individual who owns a firearm to report the loss or theft of that firearm to a law enforcement agency within 48 hours after discovering that the firearm was lost or stolen. A first offense for failure to make such a report is a petty offense punishable by a twenty-five dollar fine and a second or subsequent offense is a class 3 misdemeanor. The 48-hour reporting requirement does not apply to a licensed gun dealer.

The bill requires a law enforcement agency that receives a report of a lost or stolen firearm to enter information about the lost or stolen firearm into the national crime information center database.

Edited: to correct a format error that occurred during the copy/ paste function to assist in ease in reading.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Modern Day Savage,

Just a reminder that the bill to repeal the Red Flag law and amend the 72 hour mental health hold is scheduled for a hearing tomorrow, Thursday 3-12-20. Please contact your elected reps. and urge them to support this bill. Also, it would be most helpful to have people appear at the hearing and testify, in a show of support.

I realize that attention has been shifted away from the legislature and focused on the current national and state emergency events and restrictions but I thought I would update the thread.

HB20-1271 Repeal Red Flag and Amend 72-hour hold was allowed to die in committee along a party line vote.

Note that due to the emergency the state legislature regular session has been suspended until 30 March.

Small bit of interesting and good news.

Although Arapahoe, Adams, Douglas, and Jefferson counties are now under a "Stay at Home" order, among the institutions and businesses exempted from the order, classified as "Essential" are both "licensed gun stores and ammo retailers".

Cancel last...Governor Polis just declared state-wide Shelter in Place order. At this time I have no info as to if/ how this order affects licensed gun stores and ammo retailers.

Gun stores are still open for business as of this day.

Outdoor ranges are closed though, GGC and CWC anyway, not sure about any others.

I'm sure most have figured out by now that, at least as of this date and time, that gun stores have been allowed to remain open under the Stay at Home order. Gun stores fall under the exemption of " Critical Retail"... however, in order to remain open gun stores (and the other "critical" businesses) are expected to comply with the "social distancing" and cleaning requirements.

CDPHE Order

Most of the gun stores that I'm aware of have implemented various policies such as limiting the number of customers in the store at any given time to separating customers into different lines or spaces within the retail area, not to mention various frequent cleaning/ sterilizing schedules. In some cases I've read about stores requiring the scheduling of appointments, especially when handling transfers or pick-ups.

Shooting ranges aren't specifically exempted under the order. Early on, I'm aware of at least one range that initially closed, however upon review they made the necessary adjustments and remain open...previously they had been open to both members and the general public however now they remain open only to their members.

Of the shooting ranges that I'm aware of, all appear to be open, at least in some form, as of this date.

If anyone is aware of gun stores or shooting ranges that have closed due to the order I would be interested to hear about them. It would also be interesting to hear about the various ways that gun stores and shooting ranges are making adjustments to comply with the requirements and stay open.

I mentioned the recent Colorado Supreme Court ruling that, during the Governor's Stay at Home emergency order the legislature is permitted to ignore Constitutional language in the Colorado legislature 2020 thread, so I won't rehash it here, other than to mention that we need to be ready for either the Regular Session and/ or a Special Legislative Session to occur once the emergency order is listed.

This CBI notice is from 23 March and while the article mentions a 4 day turnaround time on background checks, I caught a news report a few days later and it had increased to a 6 day backlog on approvals.

Note that while FFLs are permitted, under federal law, to continue with the transfer after 3 business days even if the background check hasn't been completed, CBI is urging FFLs to wait until the background checks are completed...so, for those who might be transferring a gun at this time, be prepared for a delay that may go over 3 days.

Colorado Background Checks for Firearms Up 227%

03/23/2020—With a historic volume of requests for background checks for firearms transfers, the Colorado Bureau of Investigation (CBI) InstaCheck Unit is reporting extended wait times for these important public safety checks. With 25,468 background checks for firearms transfers received in the last week, as compared to 7,773 received in the same timeframe last year, this has resulted in an increase of 227%. The sustained demand has resulted in a queue of 12,442 with an average turnaround time of approximately four calendar days, which differs from *business days. When the background check turnaround times exceed the federal regulation of three *business days, it becomes the discretion of Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) to release firearms outside of this window. However, the CBI strongly encourages firearms dealers to hold firearms until background checks are completed. The CBI has implemented changes to address this unprecedented volume of background checks, from expanding internal InstaCheck hours to cross-training specialized staff members to assist in the process; however, these efforts must be balanced with protecting the health and safety of employees and reducing the potential for community spread related to COVID-19. Spikes and delays in background checks for firearms transfers are being reported nationwide. The CBI is committed to performing background checks as quickly and efficiently as possible, as evidenced by InstaCheck’s average turnaround of less than eight minutes prior to COVID-19. That being said, the circumstances impacting communities across the state and the nation have posed significant challenges. The CBI continues to implement adjustments to address the demand, and appreciates the patience of FFL’s and their customers.


*Please note: The 3-day turnaround is based on BUSINESS DAYS (M-F) and excludes holidays. Example: The three business day window for a background check received on Saturday at 10am is Wednesday at midnight.

This is an opinion piece on the proposed Stolen Firearms and Safe Storage bills worth reading.

As noted in the Colorado legislature 2020 thread, the Regular Session is tentatively scheduled to reconvene 18 May.

Note: hyperlinks can be found at the linked article


‘Indeed, they are coming to take your guns’

John Cooke Apr 8, 2020 Updated Apr 8, 2020


It’s easy to forget just how quickly the rhetoric has shifted on the Second Amendment in just the last few years. For decades, we heard the same tired line from Democrats that “nobody is coming to take your guns.” Many — including myself — didn’t buy into the assertion at the time, and for many of those who defended the Second Amendment, we caught quite a bit of grief over it.

Just two years ago, though, retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens called for a complete repeal of the Second Amendment. Stevens is not a part of some radical “fringe,” he was one of nine of the most powerful members of our judicial branch. His boldness was quite a departure from then-President Barack Obama’s declaration that “I believe in the Second Amendment” in 2016.

Fast forward to 2019, when we heard candidates for the Democratic nomination for president such as former Texas U.S. Rep. Beto O’Rourke, U.S. Sen. Cory Booker, and U.S. Rep. Eric Swalwell declare their support of mandatory buyback programs for “assault weapons” — a term that Democrats still struggle to define to this day. Mandatory — meaning that if a law-abiding Coloradan decided that they wanted to keep the firearms they owned, police could come to their door to confiscate them forcibly.

“Hell yes, we are going to take your AR-15,” said O’Rourke from the debate stage just six months ago. The AR-15 platform — currently one of the most popular firearm platforms in the United States today — is used in upwards of 17 million guns in the hands of Americans already. Matter of fact, one of those 17 million is owned by yours truly, and I can guarantee it has never been used to harm the innocent.

Indeed, they are coming to take your guns.

Yet, here we are again, recycled rhetoric and all. Two new pieces of legislation have been introduced at the state level that will be heralded as “common sense” and “not in conflict with the Second Amendment.” The first imposes penalties if an individual fails to report a missing or stolen firearm (HB20-1356), the second requires “safe storage” of firearms (HB20-1355).

To many, these bills may seem harmless, but if the party of those proposing them has an end goal of eliminating — or at least grossly infringing upon — Coloradans’ right to protect themselves, why should we trust that these bills aren’t just a step toward that end goal?

It would fill an entire opinion piece to discuss why both HB20-1356 and HB20-1355 are bad ideas, so I’ll try to be brief.

If, in fact, the goal is to curb gun violence, how does reporting a stolen firearm assist in that goal? After all, firearms don’t have GPS trackers. Once somebody reports that their firearm is lost or stolen, how much closer are we to preventing that firearm from being used against innocent people? How does HB20-1356 even begin to save lives?

As for the second bill, HB20-1355, unless we plan to send law enforcement to every door to ask if somebody owns firearms and how they are stored, nobody will be charged with not properly storing a firearm, unless it is later used in a crime.

Regardless of the policies themselves — which are borderline ridiculous — I believe it is important to understand the endgame for all policymakers involved. Has anybody asked state Rep. Tom Sullivan, D-Centennial, the sponsor of HB20-1356, whether he would support a full repeal of the Second Amendment? Has anybody asked Colorado House Speaker K.C. Becker, D-Boulder, or Senate Majority Leader Steve Fenberg, D-Boulder, that same question?

When Rep. Monica Duran, D-Wheat Ridge, the sponsor of HB20-1355, says that Democrats will be bringing gun legislation “to the point where it’s just as common as a health care bill,” it surely seems to reinforce the idea that these efforts are simply an attempt to slowly chip away at the Second Amendment — death by a thousand bills. After all, less than a year couldn’t possibly show whether or not their legislation was effective, so why would they immediately propose new bills the next session?

Therein lies the issue. While the pro-gun control group “Moms Demand Action” was able to review the bills with enough time to arrange a protest on the day they were introduced, Republicans such as myself were unaware of the bills’ contents. That’s the way the Democrats want it. These bills aren’t about saving lives; they aren’t about finding a balance. They’re about sending a subtle message to Coloradans: “Hell yes, we’re coming for your guns. It just might take a while.”

John Cooke, R-Greeley, represents District 13 in the Colorado Senate. He also served as Weld County Sheriff from 2002 to 2014.

[emphasis added]

ETA: legislature reconvene date

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Modern Day Savage,

I caught a radio interview with Arapahoe county Sheriff Brown. During the interview he mentioned that Arapahoe had stopped processing all new applications for CHPs, as well as all renewals, however for all current Arapahoe CHP holders with permits expiring during the declared emergency, the Sheriff's office will send out a letter extending the renewal date, and will waive any late fees once the permit renewal process is resumed.

El Paso county Sheriff's office has also discontinued processing all new CHP applications, however their office is still processing all renewals as they come in.

I'd be interested in hearing from members on how their respective county sheriffs are handling CHPs during the declared emergency.

Colorado GOV to let stay at home order expire next week.

https://www.washingtonexaminer...sses-begin-to-reopen

ArtieS, thanks for posting the article!

I caught the press conference in which the Governor announced the (previously planned) expiration of the Stay at Home order, and he kept emphasizing that the next phase is what he is now calling "safer at home" order, and spent the majority of the press conference explaining the various restrictions that would still remain in effect and how we would need to adjust to the "new normal" of restrictions for months to come, and of those businesses allowed to open, the restrictions they would be forced to operate under, so, while I'm thankful for the Stay at Home order expiration, the new orders don't allow for much of a sigh of relief.

Big thumbs up to our friends at Rally for our Rights for covering this!

[Note: hyperlinks and comments can be found at linked story]

CO Governor Issues Exec Order Altering Concealed Carry Permit Requirements Amid Coronavirus Outbreak

Posted on April 9, 2020 by Lesley Hollywood

Amid the recent widespread coronavirus meltdown, most counties in the state of Colorado have halted the issuing of new concealed handgun permits due to government agencies suspending all fingerprinting and other non-essential in-person contact in an effort to comply with public health directives. This included the required fingerprinting while issuing a new concealed handgun permit.

After several county sheriffs urged the Colorado Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to put a temporary process in place to issue these permits, Colorado Governor Jared Polis included a section related to concealed handgun permits in Executive Order D-2020-029 which was issued on Monday, April 6, 2020. This section of the order alters the requirements to apply for and issue a concealed handgun permit under C.R.S. 18-12-205 by doing two things: suspending the in-person requirements, and eliminating the requirement that the sheriff must take two complete sets of an applicant’s fingerprints to submit to the CBI. The order goes on to strongly encourage sheriffs to only issue a temporary emergency permit which would expire after 90 days as well as conduct a Colorado Crime Information Center (CCIC)/National Crime Information Center (NCIC) check of each applicant. The governor is also encouraging sheriffs to revisit and reevaluate permits issued under this executive order once the health directives have been lifted. It appears these are only suggestions and ultimately the process will be left up to the individual county sheriffs to determine on a community level.

Here is the related excerpt of Executive Order D-2020-029:

I. I temporarily suspend the “in person” requirements related to the application and issuance of permits to carry concealed handguns (Concealed Handgun Permits) contained in C.R.S. §§ 18-12-205(2)(a), (2)(b), (3)(a), (3)(b), and (4)(a). I also temporarily suspend the requirement in C.R.S. § 18-12-205(4)(b) that a sheriff shall take two (2) complete sets of an applicant’s fingerprints to submit to the Colorado Bureau of Investigation (CBI). In assessing each Concealed Handgun Permit application, I strongly encourage sheriffs, in order to maintain safety through social distancing, to first consider issuance of a temporary emergency permit pursuant to C.R.S. § 18-12-209 (valid for an initial period of ninety (90) days) if appropriate, and second, to conduct a Colorado Crime Information Center (CCIC)/National Crime Information Center (NCIC) check of each applicant to determine whether the applicant is eligible to possess a firearm pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) before issuing a Concealed Handgun Permit. During the effective period of this Executive Order, sheriffs may issue Concealed Handgun Permits pursuant C.R.S. §§ 18- 12-206 or -209 upon completion of the requirements of C.R.S. § 18-12-205, as modified by this Executive Order. Upon expiration of this Executive Order, I strongly encourage sheriffs to revisit and reevaluate permits granted under this Executive Order for compliance with all of the mandates in C.R.S. § 18-12-205.

With record breaking gun sales in the past thirty days, the limitations of the permitting process for those wishing to obtain a new conceal carry permit has created barriers, and we believe the better deregulation would be an executive order allowing for constitutional carry (allowing for open or conceal carry without a permit). Currently Colorado law only allows for the open carry of a firearm without a permit while conceal carry requires one.

But another barrier that still exists, even with the latest executive order, is the training requirement under C.R.S. 18-12-203(1)(h). This statute requires the applicant to submit a training certificate from a handgun training class they completed within the ten years prior. Although the executive order does suspend the requirement to submit the certificate in person, it does not change any of the training requirements – which explicitly requires in-person contact and makes clear online-only courses do not suffice.

According to C.R.S. 18-12-202(5)(III) the training requirement states:

(III) A firearms safety course or class that is offered and taught by a certified instructor.
(b) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this subsection
(5), “handgun training class” does not include any firearms safety course that allows a person to complete the entire courseI) Via the internet or an electronic device; or
(II) In any location other than the physical location where the certified instructor offers the course

This means that applicants MUST be in both close proximity to other individuals and at a place of business in order to obtain this training certificate, all while under the governor’s own stay-at-home order.

Another slice of the governor’s most recent executive order is likely related to the backlog CBI is facing with the unprecedented amount of background checks on gun purchases that has created a wait time of several days.

This section of the order waives the requirement that CBI make a determination within 30 days on denied background checks when the transferree claims it was imporperly denied. Although the order is only good until April 30th or until any extension is lifted, it’s unclear how long CBI would have after it’s lifted.

Here is the related excerpt:

K. I temporarily suspend the requirement in C.R.S. § 24-33.5-424(5)(b)(II) that CBI render a
final administrative decision regarding the denial of a firearm transfer within thirty (30)
days after receiving information from the transferee that alleges the transfer was
improperly denied, to provide CBI with additional time to complete these duties in light
of the support they are providing to the State during the COVID-19 pandemic, with the
expectation that CBI will fulfill these duties as soon as practicable.

Larimer County Sheriff Justin Smith has already put into place how his office plans to utilize the deregulation surrounding this executive order and concealed handgun permits. According to a post on the Sheriff’s Facebook page, they do intend to run applicants through NCIC as well as complete fingerprinting once the health directives have been lifted.

If you would like to know how your county is handling this, please contact them and then report back to us. We’ll keep on top of the situation.

FYI, I'm hearing reports of some of the various counties' Sheriffs projecting upcoming dates in May when they will resume processing CHP applications and renewals.

I'd still be interested in hearing about individual counties' plans and whether any might be dragging their heels on this.