Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Colorado Open carry State

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Thornton, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    113

    Post imported post

    So I took my CC class this weekend the class was good and I like the instructors but I have to disagree with something he said. Like a lot of the other stories I have heard when it comes to OC a lot of CC instructors are against it sometimes for good reasons (ie. tactical advantage) and other maybe because if everyone OC'ed it would put them out of business, or at least drastically decrease there client base. Anyway my gripe with him was that he said that Colorado is not a true open carry state unlike New Mexico and others who's law tells them that they can open carry. I am sure we here are all aware that Colorado doesn't have a law that bands OC which is what makes it legal.My gripe is with his thinking that New Mexico's law is a true open carry and in my opinion Colorado's law is a true open carry state in the fact that the state does not tell us that we can. Colorado seems to recognize our natural right to carry, or they at least doesn't care enough to take it away. To me that is what a right is not the state or federal governments giving us permission, that is a privilege and to me the more a government says what a person can do the less freedom we have. His defense was that the Colorado law has no teeth which may be a valid pointwiththe waytoday’s courts are. I just don't feel that when we are supposed to be in the land of the free that we need to have permission from our government to do something, and on this point any way I think the Colorado government understands that right. I wanted to see what other peoples opinions are orif Iam just aloan nut:celebrate.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Castle Rock, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    779

    Post imported post

    You hit it right on the head. We don't need no steeking laws to cover our OC. There is no law against it (sans Denver), so it is purely legal. CC instructors get paid only if people come to get their classes that are required by law to CC. They like the CC requirement because it puts $$ in their pocket. Granted, they also conduct other non-required classes, but since we're talking CC classes only, we'll stick to that.

    Many folks would like to see a law protecting OC similar to what preemption does for CC, but since both the US and CO Constitutions protect the RKBA, a law would be another form of permission and therefore infringement on a low level. The only upside to OC preemption would be more leverage legally against the few LEO's, judges, and legislators that would abuse our natural rights.

  3. #3
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , Alabama, USA
    Posts
    935

    Post imported post

    Bebop wrote:
    a lot of CC instructors are against it sometimes for good reasons (ie. tactical advantage)
    There is NO "tactical advantage" to CC unless you are a BG planning on commiting a criminal act...otherwise, every LEO and soldier would CC.


  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Thornton, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    113

    Post imported post

    Comp-tech wrote:
    Bebop wrote:
    a lot of CC instructors are against it sometimes for good reasons (ie. tactical advantage)
    There is NO "tactical advantage" to CC unless you are a BG planning on commiting a criminal act...otherwise, every LEO and soldier would CC.
    I disagree, there is a tactical advantage to have a BG not know who is armed.

    "All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must seem inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near. Hold out baits to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and crush him."
    - Sun Tzu, the Art of War

    They may not specifically target people who OC, they may not even notice since they could be distracted by what they are doing. Your argument of "...otherwise, every LEO and soldier would CC." is not a very good one. Even if they did onlyCC wearing the uniform is a dead giveaway that the LEO or soldier is armed, and it's very hard to CC a M-16 with an M203. I am sure that most LEO's and even some soldiers carry CC because if they need it, its a weapon the BG's don't know about.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Castle Rock, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    779

    Post imported post

    Bebop wrote:
    Comp-tech wrote:
    Bebop wrote:
    a lot of CC instructors are against it sometimes for good reasons (ie. tactical advantage)
    There is NO "tactical advantage" to CC unless you are a BG planning on commiting a criminal act...otherwise, every LEO and soldier would CC.
    I disagree, there is a tactical advantage to have a BG not know who is armed.

    "All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must seem inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near. Hold out baits to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and crush him."
    - Sun Tzu, the Art of War

    They may not specifically target people who OC, they may not even notice since they could be distracted by what they are doing. Your argument of "...otherwise, every LEO and soldier would CC." is not a very good one. Even if they did onlyCC wearing the uniform is a dead giveaway that the LEO or soldier is armed, and it's very hard to CC a M-16 with an M203. I am sure that most LEO's and even some soldiers carry CC because if they need it, its a weapon the BG's don't know about.
    The Art of War is a great read, but doesn't apply to CC/OC LAC's. We carry in defense of ourselves and not to "entice the enemy". We do not search out bad guys!!! We are not law enforcement! We carry only to defend ourselves and family where ever we may be during our normal daily routines.
    There is a big difference between what we do as LACs who carry and what LEO/soldiers do in their duties.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Thornton, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    113

    Post imported post

    Evil Ernie wrote:
    Bebop wrote:
    Comp-tech wrote:
    Bebop wrote:
    a lot of CC instructors are against it sometimes for good reasons (ie. tactical advantage)
    There is NO "tactical advantage" to CC unless you are a BG planning on commiting a criminal act...otherwise, every LEO and soldier would CC.
    I disagree, there is a tactical advantage to have a BG not know who is armed.

    "All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must seem inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near. Hold out baits to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and crush him."
    - Sun Tzu, the Art of War

    They may not specifically target people who OC, they may not even notice since they could be distracted by what they are doing. Your argument of "...otherwise, every LEO and soldier would CC." is not a very good one. Even if they did onlyCC wearing the uniform is a dead giveaway that the LEO or soldier is armed, and it's very hard to CC a M-16 with an M203. I am sure that most LEO's and even some soldiers carry CC because if they need it, its a weapon the BG's don't know about.
    The Art of War is a great read, but doesn't apply to CC/OC LAC's. We carry in defense of ourselves and not to "entice the enemy". We do not search out bad guys!!! We are not law enforcement! We carry only to defend ourselves and family where ever we may be during our normal daily routines.
    There is a big difference between what we do as LACs who carry and what LEO/soldiers do in their duties.
    I agree that most of us don't go looking for a fight. You are missing the point of the quote that I was using, that point is that great minds agree that deception is an advantage if you want to win an engagement and part of deception is to not reveal your hand (so to speak) until you need to. I am in no way saying that we should always CC, I carry OC myself. I was just showing that as a little more definitive proof that CC is a tactical advantage. I would also have to disagree that it doesn't apply to LAC's, granted the book is about war however that does not mean that it can't help with self defense lessons.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Castle Rock, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    779

    Post imported post

    And that was the clarification I was looking for! Well done!
    Generally I OC, but there are some times/places that CC is called for, such as heavily populated gatherings; places that you are elbow to elbow with strangers. Good coverage and retention is definitely a plus.

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Castle Rock, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    392

    Post imported post

    Colorado doesn't need a law "allowing" OC. The Colorado Constitution's RKBA provision protects bearing arms in defense of your person, but in the same sentence does not protect concealment. This means that OC is the constitutionally protected form of carry and CC is subject to statutory regulation. I think Colorado's OC protection is better than just about anywhere else. Laws allowing OC are much easier to overturn than constitutions protecting it.


  9. #9
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855

    Post imported post

    centsi wrote:
    Colorado doesn't need a law "allowing" OC. The Colorado Constitution's RKBA provision protects bearing arms in defense of your person, but in the same sentence does not protect concealment. This means that OC is the constitutionally protected form of carry and CC is subject to statutory regulation. I think Colorado's OC protection is better than just about anywhere else. Laws allowing OC are much easier to overturn than constitutions protecting it.
    This is a very good point for the discussion of OC is not permitted, it is simply not prohibited. When a state constitution is worded so as to make CC a privilege, therefore subject to statutory regulation, but states the reaffirmation of the existing right to k&b arms, it makes OC a 'right of the people' beyond dispute. WI has done this via case law: CO and other states are constitutionally based, and as stated by centsi, much more difficult to modify. The grandfathered Denver County ban would, if challenged again without the justice who had to recuse himself, be overturned I firmly believe. Everywhere else in the state, OC is legal--with the usual caveats about some government buildings with metal detectors.
    "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

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    , Colorado, USA
    Posts
    65

    Post imported post

    I took my CCW class a few weeks ago and I also found that the instructor didn't know much about Open Carry or any of the Colorado laws. I thought that was rather disappointing.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    7

    Post imported post

    If this is the case then why hasn't anyone done anything about Denver?





    Gunslinger wrote:
    centsi wrote:
    Colorado doesn't need a law "allowing" OC. The Colorado Constitution's RKBA provision protects bearing arms in defense of your person, but in the same sentence does not protect concealment. This means that OC is the constitutionally protected form of carry and CC is subject to statutory regulation. I think Colorado's OC protection is better than just about anywhere else. Laws allowing OC are much easier to overturn than constitutions protecting it.
    This is a very good point for the discussion of OC is not permitted, it is simply not prohibited. When a state constitution is worded so as to make CC a privilege, therefore subject to statutory regulation, but states the reaffirmation of the existing right to k&b arms, it makes OC a 'right of the people' beyond dispute. WI has done this via case law: CO and other states are constitutionally based, and as stated by centsi, much more difficult to modify. The grandfathered Denver County ban would, if challenged again without the justice who had to recuse himself, be overturned I firmly believe. Everywhere else in the state, OC is legal--with the usual caveats about some government buildings with metal detectors.

Posting Permissions

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