6 replies [Last post]
hawkeye270's picture
Offline
Grand Slam Challenge Winner!
Location: Fort Collins, CO
Joined: 06/15/2008
Posts: 1862
CO CCW database flawed

The Denver Post has an article claiming that the CCW database is flawed. Below are a few of the problems that they claim it has. I am not sure how much is really a problem and how much is being played up to look bad.

• Of 51,000 records that are entered by participating sheriff's offices onto the computer system, 32,000, or 63 percent, of the records contain inaccuracies, the audit says.

• Although concealed-gun permits expire in five years, the database contains records for dozens of permits claiming they won't expire for 40, 50 or 100 years.

• 2,000 records in the database are duplicates, with one showing the permit as valid, and a second showing it as revoked — for the same person.

• Another 2,700 permits indicate on an initial screen that a person has a permit while a secondary screen shows that they were denied a permit.

Read more: Colorado gun-permit database incomplete, riddled with errors - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_16900805#ixzz18iIdGgaD
Read The Denver Post's Terms of Use of its content: http://www.denverpost.com/termsofuse

WesternHunter's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/05/2006
Posts: 2363
9news

Saw that today on 9news.com.  Nothing more than an article probably backed by the anti-gun crowd trying to create bad opinion on lawful CCW holders.   What does law enforcement care who has a CCW?  Typically CCW holders are lawful abiding citizens anyway.  No real criminal goes out of their way to pay to get an FBI background check and have fingerprints on file to get issued a permit for something they can do anyway by doing what they do best - breaking the law, carrying a conealed weapon without a permit.  There's something very very wrong when lawman and the government feel fearful of lawful abiding citizens who keep and bear arms. Only in a police state does that sentiment occure. 

Offline
Location: California
Joined: 09/06/2008
Posts: 1071
probably true WH

Maybe we're cynical and paranoid but we have some cause to be. As Kissinger said "even paranoids have enemies". It's sad to think that the anti's are behind his, but they probably area.

expatriate's picture
Offline
Location: Arizona
Joined: 10/26/2002
Posts: 3207
32,000 have inaccuracies?

32,000 have inaccuracies?  That's horrible!  But just one question, Mr. Reporter...how do you define "inaccuracy?"  How many were typographical errors?  How many of those errors are substantive?  How many would have any bearing whatsoever on the permit holder's ability to hold the permit?

So the system shows both "valid" and "revoked" for the same person.  Is the database constructed in such a way that the entry for revocation is added sequentially to the one made when the permit was originally granted?  If someone from law enforcement makes an inquiry on status, will they see "revoked" for current status, even though there was an earlier entry that said "valid?"

There's a lot of ways to skin this cat, but it's a sure bet that it's a hit piece written by an anti-gunner willing to spin and distort to suit an agenda.

 

 

WesternHunter's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/05/2006
Posts: 2363
Another twist

I recall when originally reading about this that most lawmen admitted to never reading past the first page when doing any checks liek this.  Alarming!  Who's really the incompetent ones here?  Got to know your job and do it completely if you want to have any affect.  No different in any other working environement.

If that's too much work for them then we can always find a way to make it much easier for both cop and lawful citizen alike.  Do what Vermont has done regarding concealed weapons carry.  They don't issue permits nor keep a database for that purpose.  No permit is required for lawful conceal carry of a weapon in that state, and that's the way it should be!!

bitmasher's picture
Offline
Moderator
Location: Colorado
Joined: 02/27/2002
Posts: 2973
fascinating

I find the whole thing fascinating.  Couple points.

1.) There never should have been a database.  The original bill had no database component to the ccw permitting process.  However to bring in more votes and get support from most law enforcement lobbies, the database was implemented into the bill and finally passed the Colorado legislature.  There is no gun registry in Colorado, why the heck did we ever allow a ccw registry of people that go way beyond the typical background check required for a gun?

2.) Local sheriff's had the option to not submit to the database.  HA! HA!  Of course its inaccurate, since it was built right into the original law.  Bravo to the sheriff's that don't submit, I really respect these folks.

3.) The databases in Colorado and in other states have occasionally been publicly published.  The Coloradan did it back in 2000 and other states have had the same problem.  Nice, some paper with an axe to grind publishes lists of people authorized to carry in the interest of "public safety".

4.) The audit highlights the problem with starting a database.  Eventually it contains more info than it was originally supposed to: DL #, SSN#, License Plate #, and of course in CO... finger prints.  Give you a warm fuzzy yet?

5.) Given that the CCW database is so badly screwed up, it makes me wonder what kind of freak show lurks in the CCIC database.

6.) CO has this lame database that does nothing for the permit holder.  In some other states, with a complete database, at least it circumvents the background check process when purchasing a gun.  In other words, because the permit is easily verifiable via a database an active/current permit holder is not required to do a background check when acquiring a gun.

WesternHunter's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/05/2006
Posts: 2363
permit holders

bitmasher wrote:

6.) CO has this lame database that does nothing for the permit holder.  In some other states, with a complete database, at least it circumvents the background check process when purchasing a gun.  In other words, because the permit is easily verifiable via a database an active/current permit holder is not required to do a background check when acquiring a gun.

It has been proposed before, during the 18 month dry spell after the last presidential election, that we use the database to also benefit the permit holders in that if you hold a permit your background check to purchase a firearm should be much faster or forgone all together.  I recall 850 KOA talking about this on the drive home back in spring '09.  But, of course to even out the field, the nornally concervative talk show radio station purposely brought in one obviously very anti-gun host to counter the one moderate talkshow host on that hour. 

On a different note: As far as the database being messed up with disrepencies - I can only say that I have a pretty good idea of how any government agency can screw things up.  I deal with the Federal Government everyday in my new position now and let me just say that those dealings reinforces my long held belief that government conspiracies can't exist.  In my experience dealing with certain agencies I've found that the government is too disorganized, it's employees too lazy and complacent, and the motivation too slow for them to be able to be involved or pull off anything remotley close to a conspiracy. lol

Related Forum Threads You Might Like

ThreadThread StarterRepliesLast Updated
Ted Nugentjfrench6201/31/2009 02:44 am
Adding data for a new state | You pick itAmericanBwana402/22/2007 20:14 pm
National ID Card?expatriate1003/17/2010 11:51 am
Democrats Stall on Gun-Records Billbitmasher1602/02/2008 22:06 pm
Called Mountain Lion Stories...rainshadow1607/05/2010 13:10 pm