Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: Online Petition to Repeal Unconstitutional Ban on Non-residents Applying for CO Carry Permits!

  1. #1
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    Too bad the petition does not mention that this state citizenship discrimination violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause!

    Let's roll!

    http://www.petitiononline.com/CoPermit/petition.html

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Castle Rock, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    392

    Post imported post

    Why is this addressed to the Colorado AG? Shouldn't it be addressed to the legislature?


  3. #3
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    Good point - I have asked petition author to clarify with a note at top.

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , Texas, USA
    Posts
    40

    Post imported post

    I would suggest that full reciprocity be added to the petition.

  5. #5
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Henderson, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    333

    Post imported post

    The biggest problem for CO is not that they don't issue non-resident permits, but that they refuse to recognize a permit they already claim to acknowledge - simply based on the state of residence of the permit holder.

    I have a Utah permit and SGT Jensen has a Utah permit. If we're both stopped in CO for CC, he walks away and I go to jail. That is the big P&I violation, and the first point that needs to be addressed, IMO.

    They aren't the only state breaking the law in that regard. For the lawyers in the house, what would be involved in a P&I suit against the various states where this is happening? Does one need to be arrested to gain "standing?" Could we sue all the states with "resident of state where permit issued" restrictions all at once in Federal Court?

  6. #6
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    bobernet wrote:
    The biggest problem for CO is not that they don't issue non-resident permits, but that they refuse to recognize a permit they already claim to acknowledge - simply based on the state of residence of the permit holder.

    I have a Utah permit and SGT Jensen has a Utah permit. If we're both stopped in CO for CC, he walks away and I go to jail. That is the big P&I violation, and the first point that needs to be addressed, IMO.

    They aren't the only state breaking the law in that regard. For the lawyers in the house, what would be involved in a P&I suit against the various states where this is happening? Does one need to be arrested to gain "standing?" Could we sue all the states with "resident of state where permit issued" restrictions all at once in Federal Court?
    you are correct - Colo. is violates the Privilegs and Immunities Clause twice. They need to be sued - ready to be a Plaintiff?

  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Henderson, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    333

    Post imported post

    Mike wrote:
    you are correct - Colo. is violates the Privilegs and Immunities Clause twice. They need to be sued - ready to be a Plaintiff?
    I'd certainly be willing to consider it. I'm not broke, but we're a single income family with 4 kids. I don't have a spare $20k to devote to legal fees.

    Suggestions?

  8. #8
    Regular Member Anubis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Arapahoe County CO, ,
    Posts
    451

    Post imported post

    I agree that CO shouldrecognize non-residents with CCW permits of reciprocal states, or at least offer a nonrez CO permit. Of course open carry outside Denver does not require any permit, so you're not completely without legal armed self-defense options.

    bobernet wrote:
    I have a Utah permit and SGT Jensen has a Utah permit. If we're both stopped in CO for CC, he walks away and I go to jail.
    If stopped for CCin a vehicle, you're both OK because vehicle carry is legal in CO without permit. I doubt if you would go to jail if stopped for CC on foot anyway, because getting caught with an unlicensedconcealed firearm weapon isnot a felony here (see below).

    CRS 18-12-105. Unlawfully carrying a concealed weapon - unlawful possession of weapons.

    (1) A person commits a class 2 misdemeanor if such person knowingly and unlawfully:

    (a) Carries a knife concealed on or about his or her person; or

    (b) Carries a firearm concealed on or about his or her person; or...

    [note: "knife" is defined elsewhere in the statutes as having a blade over 3.5 inches in length]

    From CRS 18-1.3-501: the minimum punishment for a class 2 misdemeanor is either3 months in the can or $250 fine (or both), the max is 12 months or $1000 (or both). It's likely that a first offender would notget jail time.


  9. #9
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Henderson, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    333

    Post imported post

    Can CO LEO cite and release for a class 2 misdemeanor, or does it require booking and arraignment?

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Castle Rock, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    392

    Post imported post

    CRS 16-3-102. Arrest by peace officer.

    (1) A peace officer may arrest a person when:
    (a) He has a warrant commanding that such person be arrested; or
    (b) Any crime has been or is being committed by such person in his presence; or
    (c) He has probable cause to believe that an offense was committed and has probable cause to believe that the offense was committed by the person to be arrested.

    The operative word here is may. This is the only statue I was able to find.

    Additionally, I just got off the phone with a friend of mine who is a CO State Patrol Corporal. He said that it is not mandatory to arrest for Class 2 Misdemeanor, it's up to the officer's discretion, but that he can't think of an instance where he wouldn't arrest for CC without a permit.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855

    Post imported post

    Mike wrote:
    bobernet wrote:
    The biggest problem for CO is not that they don't issue non-resident permits, but that they refuse to recognize a permit they already claim to acknowledge - simply based on the state of residence of the permit holder.

    I have a Utah permit and SGT Jensen has a Utah permit. If we're both stopped in CO for CC, he walks away and I go to jail. That is the big P&I violation, and the first point that needs to be addressed, IMO.

    They aren't the only state breaking the law in that regard. For the lawyers in the house, what would be involved in a P&I suit against the various states where this is happening? Does one need to be arrested to gain "standing?" Could we sue all the states with "resident of state where permit issued" restrictions all at once in Federal Court?
    you are correct - Colo. is violates the Privilegs and Immunities Clause twice. They need to be sued - ready to be a Plaintiff?
    Same old BS. This will last 5 minutes in court before it's thrown out. "A fool and his money..."
    "For any man who sheds his blood with me this day shall be my brother...And gentlemen now abed shall think themselves accursed, they were not here, and hold their manhoods cheap whilst any speaks who fought with us on Crispin's day." Henry V

  12. #12
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    Gunslinger wrote:
    Mike wrote:
    you are correct - Colo. is violates the Privilegs and Immunities Clause twice. They need to be sued - ready to be a Plaintiff?
    Same old BS. This will last 5 minutes in court before it's thrown out. "A fool and his money..."
    Huh? Bach v. Pataki explained thatP & I violation analysis squarely applies to gun privileges.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,882

    Post imported post

    Here's a basic question: how the hell do they know whether you are or ever were a resident of a state that issued you a carry permit? I know it's easy to get a Florida non-resident permit, for example, but are they marked differently for non-residents? What's to stop someone from just saying that they moved since it was issued? Just a thought.

    -ljp

  14. #14
    Regular Member Anubis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Arapahoe County CO, ,
    Posts
    451

    Post imported post

    Legba, in CO the CCW permit must be accompanied by a driver's license. If the permit is issued by reciprocal state X, the home address on the driver's license must also be in state X.

    Thesame FLCCW permit is issued to both FL residents and non-residents, but it lists the home address of the permittee anyway. My FL permit indicates that I live in CO.

  15. #15
    Regular Member Anubis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Arapahoe County CO, ,
    Posts
    451

    Post imported post

    The petition states: "Colorado also recognizes very few permits from other states". This is true only if you think 30 states is "very few"; I don't.


  16. #16
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855

    Post imported post

    Mike wrote:
    Gunslinger wrote:
    Mike wrote:
    you are correct - Colo. is violates the Privilegs and Immunities Clause twice. They need to be sued - ready to be a Plaintiff?
    Same old BS. This will last 5 minutes in court before it's thrown out. "A fool and his money..."
    Huh? Bach v. Pataki explained thatP & I violation analysis squarely applies to gun privileges.
    We've had this conversation--at length, before. Do your thing, but there are a lot of better causes to contribute money to, imo.
    "For any man who sheds his blood with me this day shall be my brother...And gentlemen now abed shall think themselves accursed, they were not here, and hold their manhoods cheap whilst any speaks who fought with us on Crispin's day." Henry V

  17. #17
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    Gunslinger wrote:
    Mike wrote:
    Gunslinger wrote:
    Mike wrote:
    you are correct - Colo. is violates the Privilegs and Immunities Clause twice. They need to be sued - ready to be a Plaintiff?
    Same old BS. This will last 5 minutes in court before it's thrown out. "A fool and his money..."
    Huh? Bach v. Pataki explained thatP & I violation analysis squarely applies to gun privileges.
    We've had this conversation--at length, before. Do your thing, but there are a lot of better causes to contribute money to, imo.
    I'm still waiting for your cite to authority on your remarkable comment that "This will last 5 minutes in court before it's thrown out."

    You need to follow the rules - cite to authority.

    As you know, Bach's challenge was not thrown out on a motion to dimiss - which by the way, takes a lot longer than 5 minutes to obtain anyway. Bach went all the way to a 3 judge panel in the 2d Circuit, and the S. Ct. denied cert.

  18. #18
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855

    Post imported post

    We had this conversation before. I supplied all the information with respect to State Police powers, the fact you seem to think there is no 10th Amendment, you cite a losing case to make you point, ignore the docrine of implicit facts of law ("well established")and base your 'legal' standing on wishful thinking insufficient to convince a stone statue that you haveany case. I don't see the point of going over the same ground again. Do your petition, I was being witty in saying it will be tossed in 5 minutes. It probably will take a good hour and a half to be dismissed. Just don't try and convince other well intentioned 2A types that your pseudo law has merit. Identify it as what it is: your opinion with not one citable case that supports its resolution in your favor. As I also said before, I agree with you 100% that it would be nice to happen the way you wishfully think. But it won't.

    To save you from reading it again, here it is:



    The court does not have to cite implicit facts of law. By its language, in granting the fact that states have residual powers for the common welfare and safety of its own citizens, and thereby may make a discriminatory ruling via state law between residents and nonresidents--the P&I notwithstanding, it recognizes an implicit fact of Constitutional law. Where the hell else do youthink this implicit fact of law comes from, if not the residual powers of the state amendment? No specific citation of any kind is made as to this trying of law because it is not necessary anymore than citing the first amendment in a freedom of speech case. It can be cited; but it is not necessary to do so on well established ground.

    One more comment, and I'm out of here: what you don't seem to understand is that each state has the Constitutionally guaranteed power to make and enforce its own laws which may be different or contradictory to other states. CO does not regulate under commerce power ocean front property because it is n/a, not because they couldn't if they wanted to on the off chance a couple of states break off into the Pacific. IA has no reciprocity with anyone, neither does MA. IL doesn't allow CC, period. If your logic, or lack of it in my opinion, held any water, I can sue IL because they don't allow me to have what my state gives me, the privilege--not right, of concealed carry. The basis would be IL deprives me of a privilege I have in CO. Your 'logic' says CO deprives you of a right CO residents have, or those with reciprocity and a resident CCW from other states. You are no more deprived than I am. You can't carry in CO--neither can any other nonresident without the above credentials. I can't carry in IL--neither can anybody else. Classes are excluded, not individuals. And the classes are excluded because the state feels they should be. The Federal Courts always have and always will uphold the states' right to make that distinction. That it is based on the 10th Amendment is well established and may or may not be cited de jure, but is always implicit de facto.


    As suggested above, the Supreme Court rarely declares laws unconstitutional for violating the Tenth Amendment. In the modern era, the Court has only done so where the federal government compels the states to enforce federal statutes. In 1992, in New York v. United States 505 U.S. 144 (1992), for only the second time in 55 years, the Supreme Court invalidated a portion of a federal law for violating the Tenth Amendment. The case challenged a portion of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985. The act provided three incentives for states to comply with statutory obligations to provide for the disposal of low-level radioactive waste. The first two incentives were monetary. The third, which was challenged in the case, obliged states to take title to any waste within their borders that was not disposed of prior to January 1, 1996, and made each state liable for all damages directly related to the waste. The Court, in a 6–3 decision, ruled that the imposition of that obligation on the states violated the Tenth Amendment. Justice O’Connor wrote that the federal government can encourage the states to adopt certain regulations through the spending power (i.e., by attaching conditions to the receipt of federal funds, see South Dakota v. Dole), or through the commerce power (by directly pre-empting state law). However, Congress cannot directly compel states to enforce federal regulations. In 1997, the Court again ruled that a federal act, this time the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, violated the Tenth Amendment (Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997)). The act required state and local law enforcement officials to conduct background checks on persons attempting to purchase handguns. Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, applied New York v. United States to show that the law violated the Tenth Amendment. Since the act “forced participation of the State’s executive in the actual administration of a federal program,” it was unconstitutional.



    "For any man who sheds his blood with me this day shall be my brother...And gentlemen now abed shall think themselves accursed, they were not here, and hold their manhoods cheap whilst any speaks who fought with us on Crispin's day." Henry V

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •