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. 

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.

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.

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!!

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.