| Author | Post |
|---|
Allium
Member
| Joined: | Tue Jul 8th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 8th, 2008 11:24 pm |
|
Can a nonresident carry open carry in Colorado. Looking to visit soon. Now my home state of Md wont issue ccw permits but i do have Fla noresident ccw. I know it no longer works foe ccw there so I was looking at the open carry - is it a legal option. If stopped by a LEO what do I legally have to show to prove I can carry?
|
Anubis
Member
|
Posted: Wed Jul 9th, 2008 02:36 am |
|
Open carry is legal in CO except in Denver, and vehicle carry is legal everywhere in the state. Neither practice requires a permit. I think you are not legally required to show a LEO an ID, but you may choose to show a driver's license to prove you are over 21 (if you look young  ).
Last edited on Wed Jul 9th, 2008 02:40 am by Anubis
|
Dom
Member
|
Posted: Wed Jul 9th, 2008 02:42 am |
|
As long as you can legally own a handgun, you can open carry except in prohibited places (all of the city of Denver). See http://www.rmgo.org/faq/ for any questions and where you can't OC.
|
reefteach
Member
|
Posted: Thu Jul 10th, 2008 06:11 am |
|
I think you are talking about the residency requirement, and I am in the same boat. (CO does not have reciprosity with OH). Colorado no longer honors Concealed Carry Permits if one is not a resident of the state in which that permit was issued. (So my Non-Res FL Permit is not valid either). There are only a few states that have this type of restriction.
The kalifornians need to be run out of Denver first, then the tourist areas.
But yes. Open Carry is a great option if you are prohibited from carrying concealed in Colorado (except for Denver, where the libtards have sidestepped it into illegality). If the kalifornians don't want want you carrying concealed, just open carry. Libtards. (The reign of the libtard kalifornians in Denver needs to come to an end).
Colorado has no "stop and ID" [Papers Please ] statute.
Last edited on Thu Jul 10th, 2008 06:30 am by reefteach
|
Mike
Super Moderator
|
Posted: Thu Jul 10th, 2008 04:24 pm |
|
| Fortunately, no need to have any permit to conceal carry in Coloriado inside vehicles.
|
Allium
Member
| Joined: | Tue Jul 8th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 12th, 2008 12:01 am |
|
I asked my question to the powers that be and had this exchange
"
Hello,
I'm unsure of which "recent" reciprocity change you may be referring to, however the only recent change in law was to clarify that the state of Colorado does not recognize the validity of concealed carry permits in which the person's actual state of residence does not match state of issue for the permit.
At this time, only actual Colorado residents may still apply for a Colorado concealed carry permit.
Please feel free to contact me if I can provide any additional information or assistance regarding your inquiry.
James G. Spoden
InstaCheck/CCW Unit Supervisor
Colorado Bureau of Investigation
(303) 239-5850
Allium <grembler1@yahoo.com> 07/08/2008 08:32 AM
Please respond to grembler1
To: james.spoden@cdps.state.co.us
cc:
Subject: CCW
With the recent reciprocity change in Colorado, is it possible to request a non-resident ccw permit? Thank you"
I then followed up about open carry and carry while wearing a jacket. Been a couple days and no response
|
Gunslinger
Member
|
Posted: Sat Jul 12th, 2008 02:02 am |
|
| No. No non-resident permits, no recognition of CCW non-resident for any state CO has reciprocity with. You either have a res CO or a res from a state we recognize. OC, as stated, is legal except Denver County, and loaded CC in vehicle is legal thruout the state. Do not cover the weapon with a jacket without a CCW. Last edited on Sat Jul 12th, 2008 02:03 am by Gunslinger
|
Mike
Super Moderator
|
Posted: Sat Jul 12th, 2008 03:36 pm |
|
| Right - anyone want to sue over this violation of the priveleges and immunity clause?
|
Anubis
Member
|
Posted: Sat Jul 12th, 2008 03:51 pm |
|
Mike wrote: anyone want to sue over this violation of the priveleges and immunity clause?
This thread is related to the prohibition of open carry in Denver and to the CO concealed-carry reciprocity. I think you refer to the latter. A challenge must be made by a non-resident. CO and VA don't have reciprocity or mutual recognition; maybe you could visit us, take the appropriate action, get arrested, then fight the issue. Last edited on Sat Jul 12th, 2008 04:01 pm by Anubis
|
Gunslinger
Member
|
Posted: Sat Jul 12th, 2008 04:09 pm |
|
Mike wrote: Right - anyone want to sue over this violation of the priveleges and immunity clause?
Full faith and credit clause. As it has always been held to be a residual state power, save your money. If you want to carry in CO, OC except in your car, where CC is legal. If it weren't for Denver County, we would have one of the best gun friendly states in the Union. Even so, we're pretty good, as there are very few restriction as to where you cannot carry. Unlike VA, you can CC in bars, for example.
|
Jared
Member
|
Posted: Sat Jul 12th, 2008 04:14 pm |
|
Anubis wrote: Mike wrote: anyone want to sue over this violation of the priveleges and immunity clause?
This thread is related to the prohibition of open carry in Denver and to the CO concealed-carry reciprocity. I think you refer to the latter. A challenge must be made by a non-resident. CO and VA don't have reciprocity or mutual recognition; maybe you could visit us, take the appropriate action, get arrested, then fight the issue.
Or you guys can get the Rocky Mountain Gun Owners Association off their lazy butts and have them actually do something about this. I heard their excuses and they are as lame as can be.
Somebody is asleep at the wheel.
As to the poster who is blaming people from California, they are not the problem. The problem is people in Colorado. The entire west needs to stop blaming CA for their problems, it's such a cop-out.
What happened from basically 1901 to 2003???? When Colorado had no preemption law, when they had may-issue CCW, when they had no non-resident permits. You guys can't blame california.... blame your local neighbors and your lazy gunowning friends.
It's like when people in New Hampshire blame people from Mass for their problems. If they look at the demographics, most people from MA who move to NH move to southern NH.... places that vote republican, it's the northern part of the state that is democratic.
|
Anubis
Member
|
Posted: Sat Jul 12th, 2008 06:07 pm |
|
Jared wrote: The problem is people in Colorado.
We didn't know that! Thanks for identifying it.
|
Allium
Member
| Joined: | Tue Jul 8th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 12th, 2008 06:59 pm |
|
Actually my question stems from MD being an non-issue (unless you are a friend of MOM) CCW state and a definite no go on open carry. If you get caught with a hand gun it better be in pieces and you better be carring a reciept with range time stamped 5 minutes ago which is usless if gun and ammo are within a pissing distance of each other. I plan to travel west and all states but start and finish I can CCW (w/ fla non-res) so was looking at what options I have with Co. What worries me is winter travel and open carry - shoulder holster on a parka or ankle carry on snow boot?
Govt can train me to shoot and expect me to be good at it, i can loose body parts while doing it too but if I walk out of my house I can only run away and pray. Not a good option living within 20 minutes etheir way of 2 of the top 10 murder capitals year after year in the US.
|
Mike
Super Moderator
|
Posted: Sat Jul 12th, 2008 10:40 pm |
|
Gunslinger wrote: Mike wrote: Right - anyone want to sue over this violation of the priveleges and immunity clause?
Full faith and credit clause. As it has always been held to be a residual state power, save your money.
Huh? No, the Privileges and Immunities clause. This clause is the crux of the suit against Georgia's refusal to issue non-residents carry permits. The same attack could be made on Colorado's discrimination against holders of normally accepted carry permits based only upon state citizenship.
|
Jared
Member
|
Posted: Sun Jul 13th, 2008 01:22 am |
|
Anubis wrote: Jared wrote: The problem is people in Colorado.
We didn't know that! Thanks for identifying it.
Aparrently some people didn't know that. They thought Colorado was being controlled by California.
Take my post as a whole, not just one line. That's what the media does. You know what I'm talking about and the problem can most likely be found at your gunshop.
|
reefteach
Member
|
Posted: Sun Jul 13th, 2008 03:31 am |
|
Jared wrote: Anubis wrote: Jared wrote: The problem is people in Colorado.
We didn't know that! Thanks for identifying it.
Aparrently some people didn't know that. They thought Colorado was being controlled by California.
Take my post as a whole, not just one line. That's what the media does. You know what I'm talking about and the problem can most likely be found at your gunshop.
I agree with what you are saying. In my local congressional district alone, aprox 139,000 gun owners did not vote in the last election. This is what creates an environment for the liberal minority to gain political ground.Last edited on Sun Jul 13th, 2008 03:32 am by reefteach
|
Gunslinger
Member
|
Posted: Sun Jul 13th, 2008 05:36 pm |
|
Mike wrote: Gunslinger wrote: Mike wrote: Right - anyone want to sue over this violation of the priveleges and immunity clause?
Full faith and credit clause. As it has always been held to be a residual state power, save your money.
Huh? No, the Privileges and Immunities clause. This clause is the crux of the suit against Georgia's refusal to issue non-residents carry permits. The same attack could be made on Colorado's discrimination against holders of normally accepted carry permits based only upon state citizenship.
It's called "full faith and credit clause."
Full Faith and Credit Clause
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
The first Section of the Article requires states to give "full faith and credit" to the public acts, records and court proceedings of other states. Congress is permitted to regulate the manner in which proof of such acts, records or proceedings may be admitted.
In Mills v. Duryee, 11 U.S. (Cranch 7) 481 (1813), the United States Supreme Court ruled that the merits of the case, as determined by courts of one state, had to be recognized by the courts of other states. It was ruled, then, that state courts may not reopen cases whose merits have been conclusively determined by courts of other states. In a later case, Chief Justice John Marshall suggested that the judgment of one state court had to be recognized by other states' courts as final. Marshall's suggestion was not followed, however, when the Supreme Court decided McElmoyle v. Cohen, 38 U.S. (Pet. 13) 312 (1839). In that case, one party had obtained judgment in South Carolina and sought to enforce it in Georgia. Georgia law, however, had a statute of limitations that purported to bar actions on judgments if a certain amount of time had passed since they were rendered by the court. The court upheld Georgia's refusal to enforce the South Carolina judgment. It found that out-of-state judgments are subject to the laws and procedures of the states in which they are enforced, notwithstanding any priority accorded in the states in which they are pronounced.
You're referring to another section when it comes to individual rights.
The Privileges and Immunities Clause (U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1, also known as the Comity Clause) prevents a state from treating citizens of other states in a discriminatory manner, with regard to basic civil rights. The clause also embraces a right to travel, so that a citizen of one state can go and enjoy privileges and immunities in any other state. The text of the clause reads:
“
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
This does not fly simply because of residual powers. In essence, one trumps the other in certain areas, CC having been upheld time after time as one. P and I clause generally applies to the Federal rights guaranteed, not stepping into states police power. I'm not aware of the action you reference, but if it's upheld by the Federal Courts, I'd be surprised.
Last edited on Sun Jul 13th, 2008 05:41 pm by Gunslinger
|
Mike
Super Moderator
|
Posted: Sun Jul 13th, 2008 07:46 pm |
|
Gunslinger wrote: Mike wrote: Gunslinger wrote: Mike wrote: Right - anyone want to sue over this violation of the priveleges and immunity clause?
Full faith and credit clause. As it has always been held to be a residual state power, save your money.
Huh? No, the Privileges and Immunities clause. This clause is the crux of the suit against Georgia's refusal to issue non-residents carry permits. The same attack could be made on Colorado's discrimination against holders of normally accepted carry permits based only upon state citizenship.
It's called "full faith and credit clause."
Full Faith and Credit Clause
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
The first Section of the Article requires states to give "full faith and credit" to the public acts, records and court proceedings of other states. Congress is permitted to regulate the manner in which proof of such acts, records or proceedings may be admitted.
In Mills v. Duryee, 11 U.S. (Cranch 7) 481 (1813), the United States Supreme Court ruled that the merits of the case, as determined by courts of one state, had to be recognized by the courts of other states. It was ruled, then, that state courts may not reopen cases whose merits have been conclusively determined by courts of other states. In a later case, Chief Justice John Marshall suggested that the judgment of one state court had to be recognized by other states' courts as final. Marshall's suggestion was not followed, however, when the Supreme Court decided McElmoyle v. Cohen, 38 U.S. (Pet. 13) 312 (1839). In that case, one party had obtained judgment in South Carolina and sought to enforce it in Georgia. Georgia law, however, had a statute of limitations that purported to bar actions on judgments if a certain amount of time had passed since they were rendered by the court. The court upheld Georgia's refusal to enforce the South Carolina judgment. It found that out-of-state judgments are subject to the laws and procedures of the states in which they are enforced, notwithstanding any priority accorded in the states in which they are pronounced.
I do know what the full faith & credit clause is, and agree with your analysis on the full faith & credit clause. I was pointing out that you were mistaken in conflating the my comment about attacking state citizenship discrimination under the privileges and immunity caluse with this full faith & credit nonsense.
|
Gunslinger
Member
|
Posted: Mon Jul 14th, 2008 12:18 am |
|
"Nonsense"? The Full Faith and Credit clause has defeated every attempt to standardize gun laws in the courts for over 75 years. It will again. Residual power gives the states police power authority, well established in the Federal Courts. You may think it's "nonsense." The judicial system disagrees with you. I say again, with respect to your use of comity:
This does not fly simply because of residual powers. In essence, one (FF&C) trumps the other ( P&I) in certain areas, CC having been upheld time after time as one. P and I clause generally applies to the Federal rights constitutionally guaranteed--of which concealed carry is not one.
|
Mike
Super Moderator
|
Posted: Mon Jul 14th, 2008 01:33 am |
|
Gunslinger wrote: "Nonsense"? The Full Faith and Credit clause has defeated every attempt to standardize gun laws in the courts for over 75 years. It will again. Residual power gives the states police power authority, well established in the Federal Courts. You may think it's "nonsense." The judicial system disagrees with you. I say again, with respect to your use of comity:
This does not fly simply because of residual powers. In essence, one (FF&C) trumps the other ( P&I) in certain areas, CC having been upheld time after time as one. P and I clause generally applies to the Federal rights constitutionally guaranteed--of which concealed carry is not one.
Again, you are conflating the full faith and credit clause with other causes of action, inter alia, the Privileges and Immunity clause. The full faith and credit clause cannot work as a shield against other causes of action.
|
Current time is 06:03 pm | Page: 1 2 3 4   |
|
