Ari Armstrong's Web Log (Main) | Archives | Terms of Use

Debating Colorado Concealed Carry Proposals

I originally published this material in March, 1999, through the Colorado Freedom Report. The material was offline for many years, and I ported it here on September 8, 2025. All contents copyright © by Ari Armstrong. Please note that my perspectives have changed somewhat in the intervening quarter-century.

Governor Bill Owens signed a concealed carry bill, shall-issue with licensing, in 2003. In 2025, the Democrat-dominated legislature imposed imposed substantial new burdens on people seeking a concealed carry license. There has never been any serious political effort to pass "Vermont-style," no-licensure concealed carry in the state.

My Right of Self-Defense

by Sandra Davies Johnson, March 1999

I have a right to defend myself and protect my life. I also have a right to use a gun as a tool in self-defense.

I live in the mountains of Southern Colorado in Costilla County. If I called the sheriff in an emergency it would be at least an hour before anyone arrived, longer if the sheriff were busy with another call. What should I do? Common sense says I should take precautions such as locking my house securely and preparing to protect myself should the need arise. I could try to use my muscles and bare fists. Or I could use tools which do not depend on my size and strength.

I feel safe in my neighborhood where most have the tools they need to protect themselves and their families. One place where I do not feel safe is in parts of Denver. Can I count on the police in Denver? Well yes, about 9 minutes (on the average) after a call for help. What good does that do? The very best law enforcement personnel can be there only after the emergency. If someone kills me, does it matter whether the law shows up 30 seconds or 30 minutes after the crime? The police may be just a few minutes away, yet if I am not allowed to protect myself, I could become a victim of crime.

The irony is that in the rural areas where I don't feel threatened I am allowed to carry tools for self-defense, yet in the city where I do feel threatened I am forbidden to use such tools. Why? What right does any government official have to take away or restrict my basic right of self-defense? Have the politicians noticed that criminals pay no heed to gun control laws? Would the same politicians who want to disarm me be proud to put a sign on their front door: THIS IS A GUN-FREE HOUSEHOLD!

The Colorado State Legislature has considered several concealed carry bills this year. Some of them require registration, criminal background checks, fingerprinting, licensing fees, etc. Would you trust the government with this information? In New York they are using gun registration records to seize firearms that are now decreed illegal. Perhaps you are thinking "only in New York" -- that could never happen in Colorado. Well, did anyone from the State of Colorado ask your permission to sell the information from your drivers license? Did they mention that the Secret Service was funding the company that is buying the data? It seems they want this technology (and information about YOU) for fighting terrorism and for terrorizing immigrants.

If "the pen is mightier than the sword," then it's a wonder the politicians don't restrict the use of the pen. For every would-be journalist, the State could require a "writers license" from the State Board of Journalism. Mandates might include:

Why is such control over the press prohibited? Supporters of free speech give the seemingly obvious answer: because the First Amendment protects our rights to free speech. Does not the Second Amendment still protect our right to keep and bear arms? Unless repealed, where does Colorado get the right to restrict it in any way?

In a free society, no one has the right to infringe on my right to freedom of speech or my right to bear arms to protect myself from criminals and tyrannical governments. History proves time and again that when the State disarms the people it thereby endangers the rest of their rights as well.

Of the current bills in the Colorado State Legislature, only Senator Musgrave's "Freedom to Carry Act" (SB-156), passed in the Senate February 19, comes close to establishing the unrestricted right of law-abiding citizens to carry firearms. Unfortunately, even this bill requires permits for concealed carry and contains "criminal safe zones" where the permits are not valid.

The other concealed carry bills (SB-108, SB-84) are much worse. These bills would carry with them numerous problems, such as:

Although SB 156 might be an improvement over the current laws, it ignores these questions:

WHY should I have to get permission from the government to exercise my basic rights?

WHY should I put my name in a government database that tracks possible gun owners?

Sandra Johnson was the 1998 Libertarian Party candidate for governor.

The Concealed Carry Quarrel

by Ari Armstrong, March 1999

Last November when I attended the Preparedness Exposition (discussed in the January issue), I ran across the Rocky Mountain Gun Owners (RMGO) and the group's director Dudley Brown.

Brown and I got to chatting, and at some point he noted that his group is the only "purist, no-compromise" gun rights group in Colorado. I assured him that he was mistaken, as the Pro Second Amendment Committee of Grand Junction is equally committed to protecting gun rights.

Little did I know at the time that I was putting myself in the middle of a battle over ideology and personality. On one side is Brown, on the other my father, Linn Armstrong, of the Grand Junction organization. The conflict: how best to write a law allowing more permits for concealed guns in Colorado.

My dad supports Senator Ken Chlouber's SB-084, now inactive, which would require firearms training for a permit. Representative Doug Dean's similar HB-1316 passed a House committee vote February 25 and may breathe new life into the Senate version. Brown supports Marilyn Musgrave's SB-156, passed by the Senate February 19, that requires local law officers to issue permits on demand, though usually after a background check.

In Linn Armstrong's opinion, Musgrave's bill suffers from two defects. First, it will not be recognized by other states, as Chlouber's likely would be. Second, the lack of mandatory training will increase the risks of gun misuse, which might cause a backlash from the gun-control crowd.

But Brown sees the devil in the mandatory training. An RMGO T-shirt I picked up at the Expo reads, "It [gun ownership]'s a right, not a privilege!" Indeed it is. In his opinion the National Rifle Association and groups friendly to it push for mandatory training in part because they oversee -- and profit from -- much of this training.

The dispute about concealed carry is fueled by personality clashes. Apparently there was once a misunderstanding between Brown and members of other gun groups about the ownership of a mailing list of activists. Also, like many libertarians, both Brown and Armstrong seem to run a bit on the stubborn side. (That's Linn Armstrong, of course, not me. I'm not a bit stubborn, and don't think you can convince me otherwise.)

Brown is quick to overlook arguments that run counter to his beliefs. He's self-consciously a defender of principle, yet he looks past the pesky business of background searches in Musgrave's bill even as he blasts Chlouber's bill for its mandatory training. Hopefully we can all agree there's room for intelligent disagreement on this issue. The easy part is thinking in terms of clear, consistent principles. The hard part is applying the principles to particular cases, which are often complex, subtle, and ambiguous.

The Problem of Background Checks

After weighing the arguments, I've reached an opinion about the tricky matter of concealed carry laws that should make both parties equally happy (which is to say, unhappy). I disapprove of both bills.

Both bills require gun owners who apply for concealed carry permits to reveal information about their gun ownership to the government. Thus, even if one of the concealed carry bills becomes law, it would be a mistake for anyone to apply for a permit under it. Once the government places you on a list of gun owners, you're pegged for life. This could cause problems in two ways. First, if more guns are made illegal, such lists could be used to crack down on gun owners. Second, if a US President ever declares martial law, it is conceivable that the government could try to confiscate all guns. I don't own guns, God knows. I especially don't own a 9-mm pistol or a .22 rifle. But if I did own weapons such as these, the government is the last organization I'd want to know about it. (I don't suppose the editor of a libertarian journal can keep his name off the government's lists, anyway.)

To be sure, Musgrave's bill does promise that information won't be abused. Its summary "prohibits a sheriff or police chief from requiring an applicant to provide any information concerning weapons owned by the person." But who cares if the government knows which guns you own? The government shouldn't know whether you own guns at all. The scarier portion of the bill reads:

The Colorado bureau of investigation, upon request by a chief of police or sheriff, shall conduct a criminal history check TO DETERMINE WHETHER AN APPLICANT IS ELIGIBLE TO PURCHASE A FIREARM PURSUANT TO STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS. (Capitals in original to indicate the text added by SB-156. The text of current bills can be found at http://www.state.co.us/gov_dir/stateleg.html.

The Rocky Mountain News claims that "no background check is required" by the bill (February 20,1999, page 5A), but this is misleading. The bill also says "that a sheriff or police chief shall not be liable for any damages resulting from the granting of a permit issued in good faith to comply with the act." In order to make a good faith effort to know applicants are qualified, sheriffs will need to run practically every name by the CBI. So, before you apply for a concealed carry permit, ask yourself the question: Do I want to put myself on a list of gun owners the Federal government can access?

Are Concealed Carry Laws Constitutional?

Another problem with the concealed carry bills is their seeming affront to the Colorado Constitution. Article 2, Section 13 reads:

The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons. http://i2i.org/SuptDocs/ColoCon/iscolocn.htm

The first thing I noticed about this provision is how confusing it is. Senator Pat Pascoe claims this is a "specific prohibition of concealed weapons" (Rocky Mountain News, February 14, 1999, page 1B). However, one could interpret the provision to mean that, while the Constitution itself doesn't justify concealed carry, additional legislation may do so. Or, perhaps by passing additional legislation which allowed concealed carry, we would be "construing" the Constitution to "justify" this, thus breaking the higher law. (David Bryant tells me the Colorado Supreme Court has consistently ruled that the General Assembly may legislate in this area, but the reasons for the Court's conclusion are hardly obvious to me.)

As if the Colorado Constitution didn't raise enough questions by itself, there's also the matter of whether the Colorado law attempts to override the Federal Constitution, thus invalidating itself. If the Federal Constitution doesn't prohibit concealed carry, can Colorado law do so?

I suppose these matters are academic, as most leaders in government invoke Constitutional authority only when convenient. The irony would be if the gun rights crowd were as quick to dismiss the line in the Colorado Constitution as the gun control groups are to dismiss the Second Amendment to the Federal Constitution.

Alternative Ways to Reform Concealed Carry

I favor simpler changes to the concealed carry laws than what's offered by this year's spate of bills. Under current law, concealing a weapon without a permit carries a class 2 misdemeanor charge (18-12-105(1)). A class 2 misdemeanor carries with it a penalty of three to twelve months imprisonment, and/or a $250 to $1,000 fine (18-1-106). If a concealed carry violation were merely dropped to a class 3 misdemeanor it would go a long way toward taking the grief out of self-defense. The class 3 penalty is zero to six months imprisonment, and/or a $50 to $750 fine. A lower penalty yet would be better if legally viable.

Further, sub-section (2) of CRS 18-12-105 discusses conditions that qualify as an "affirmative defense" against the charge of concealed carry. If more "affirmative defenses" were added to the law, more people could carry without a permit. Several additions could be made to this section, such as:

18-12-105(2) would be even better if it were changed along the lines suggested in Musgrave's bill. In her SB-156, the phrase, "it shall be an affirmative defense," is changed to, "it shall not be an offense." (The Colorado Revised Statutes are available on-line at http://www.state.co.us/gov_dir/stateleg.html.)

Note that the changes I suggest do not involve permits, background checks, or mandatory training.

The Right to Bear Arms and the Right to Regulate Arms

But on to more visceral concerns. What's the point of carrying a concealed weapon in the first place? Presumably, it's to enable the carrier to shoot would-be criminals. A concealed gun is only effective if readily accessible. What's wrong with just carrying a gun on the belt out in the open, then? A visible gun would do a lot more to scare away criminals than the mere potential (from the criminal's point of view) of a concealed gun. As my dad pointed out, back when the Colorado Constitution was written, it wasn't unusual to wear guns, and usually only criminals tried to conceal them.

When guns are worn on the belt, they're easy to check at the door. And isn't it the right of property owners to ban guns on their property? The owner of a mall should be able to ban the carry of guns within the mall, right? Concealed carry laws risk running roughshod over the property right to set the terms of use of the property. Or is it suddenly OK for libertarians to ignore the wishes of the property owner, simply because they have a special permit from the State?

I think our culture would be healthier and safer if people returned to the practice of carrying visible guns. However, just as property owners have the right to ban guns, they also have the right to permit concealed ones. The State has no business dictating the use of guns on private property, which includes such so-called "public" facilities as private malls, private movie theaters, etc.

The problem of government property remains. Doesn't the government have the right to regulate the land it "owns?" The political process of necessity must govern political lands. As a practical matter, I think the government should permit at least visible weapons on its lands, and perhaps concealed ones as well. Certainly concealed weapons should be allowed in vehicles on government roads. When driving a car, it's impractical to keep a gun accessible and visible, and it's pointless to keep a gun locked up in the trunk. A gun can be safely transported, say, in the glove-box, where it is also easy to get to.

The central problem is that the government owns vast tracts of land in the first place. If the roads were private, the issue of concealed carry on roads would not have to be political. The libertarian solution to concealed carry is to privatize all land and let individual property owners set the conditions of use. My guess is that visible carry would become the norm.

Preventing Irresponsibility with Guns

With talk of an armed citizenry, visions of people blowing each other away dance in the heads of those who are ignorant concerning gun ownership. In the view of the anti-gunners, as soon as people see a gun, they froth at the mouth and lose their minds. This is the same mentality that says people cannot properly educate their children, save for retirement, contribute to charity, and so forth without help from the government. In other words, people are children, and the State is the parent.

To be sure, some people shouldn't have guns at all because they're stupid and irresponsible. I know a number of people who would make me happy if they never, ever touched a gun. However, most gun owners are completely responsible. They treat their firearms with deep respect. My parents lectured me for hours on end about the rules of gun safety. Politicians shouldn't use the thoughtless behavior of a few as an excuse to restrict the rights of everyone.

Restricting the rights of all because of the misdeeds of a few is morally wrong and damaging to the individual. Should the State restrict the rights of the press, because some report irresponsibly? Constructing policy around the "average" person rather than around individuals is always unfair. Similarly, I shouldn't have my driving restricted, simply because Colorado House Speaker Russell George chose to drive with a blood alcohol content of 0.21%. The government should penalize only those who misuse guns.

The right to bear arms is essential if people hope to keep crime and the tyranny of the State at bay. In a libertarian world, the only gun control would be enacted by private parties on their own land. Irresponsibility with guns would be punished swiftly by the courts, deterring most problems. Unfortunately, the proposed concealed carry laws don't show much promise in advancing this libertarian ideal, and they may threaten it.

Concealed Carry: Don't Compromise!

by Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, March 1999

SB-156 passed the full Senate on a vote of 20-13. Only two Democrats, Jim Dyer of Durango and Alice Nichol of Adams County, voted in favor of the bill, while the rest of the Senate voted along partisan lines. Senators Elsie Lacy and Dave Wattenberg, both questionable GOP votes, were absent.

Once a staunch supporter of Vermont-type concealed carry, State Representative Doug Dean (R-Colo. Springs) has sponsored a more restrictive concealed carry bill to compete with SB-156.

This bill is nothing more than an effort to compromise our issue and pass anything, at any cost, just so that a politician can get his glory. Its effect will be to allow elected officials to split their votes between the two bills and kill real concealed carry reform for 1999.

Dean's bill, HB-1316, mandates training and even has a provision denying permits to those convicted of domestic violence, something gun owners have been fighting on the Federal level for years.

This move is especially puzzling because Dean used to be an ally on matters of freedom. His only reason to carry this bill, which makes passage of SB-156 even more difficult, is to get statewide publicity just prior to the NRA National Convention, which will be held in Denver this May. Rather than go to the matt for your rights, Dean wants to curry favor at a convention.

Dean was an early critic of SB-156. He flatly stated that the Musgrave/McKay bill could not pass the Senate Judiciary Committee, but it did. Then he said it could not pass the Senate floor, but it did. Now, he claims the Governor will not sign the bill, but Owens' election was far too close for him to anger every gun owner in Colorado.

Editor's Note: I left numerous phone and e-mail messages with Representative Dean inviting him to reply, but he never returned any of my messages. Since RMGO wrote this article, Dean passed his competing bill in committee and Governor Owens suggested he would veto Musgrave's bill.

Colorado's Not Ready for a Vermont-Style Concealed Carry Law

by Linn Armstrong, March 1999

Why shouldn't Colorado implement a Vermont-style concealed carry law?

Philosophically, I agree with a Vermont type of concealed weapons permit -- in Vermont.

Here in Colorado, history dictates we look at concealed weapons differently.

The Colorado Constitution is one of the strongest in the Union in regards to protecting Second Amendment rights. In the same breath, the Constitution is very explicit about carrying concealed firearms.

The Colorado Constitution has not allowed a tradition of carrying concealed firearms that other states may have. As a result, many citizens of Colorado, both shooters and non-shooters, do not understand the need to carry a firearm concealed. Those who are purists in fighting for a Vermont-style permit have not won the hearts and minds of these two groups of needed supporters. As a result, Colorado does not have any type of state-issued permit, though one is badly needed.

One could wonder who is more effective at keeping people from legally carrying concealed firearms: the purists who will accept only a Vermont-style law, or Handgun Control Inc. As much as we like to blame former Governor Roy Romer for not having a concealed weapons permit in Colorado, the purists share some of the responsibility. They have insisted on an all-or-nothing permit, and what we've got is nothing. States such as Texas and Alaska, on the other hand, started out with less-than-perfect permit systems which have improved every year.

As my grandfather once said, "If we had waited for Henry Ford to develop a 'perfect' car before we bought one, we would still be riding that jackass out in the pasture." Let us work together to implement a less-than-ideal concealed weapons permit - now. Let us work together to make the concealed weapons permit better - now. With that cooperation, we can make a stronger concealed carry law in the future.

Ari Armstrong's Web Log (Main) | Archives | Terms of Use