Colorado girl
Newbie
What should someone expect from a summons for Prohibited Use of Weapons in Colorado. The gun was unloaded but the person was intoxicated and sitting in a car parked at his home. Also, the gun was not concealed.
What should someone expect from a summons for Prohibited Use of Weapons in Colorado. The gun was unloaded but the person was intoxicated and sitting in a car parked at his home. Also, the gun was not concealed.
welcome...I am not an attorney, but you might seek one out to protect their rights.
additionally, you might cease divulging any further information on this subject on a public forum.
There is a problem here and it needs to be corrected.TITLE 18. CRIMINAL CODE
ARTICLE 12. OFFENSES RELATING TO FIREARMS AND WEAPONS
PART 1. FIREARMS AND WEAPONS - GENERAL
18-12-106. Prohibited use of weapons
(1) A person commits a class 2 misdemeanor if:
(d) The person has in his or her possession a firearm while the person is under the influence of intoxicating liquor or of a controlled substance, as defined in section 18-18-102 (5).
ANNOTATION - Self-defense is not a valid defense to the crime of prohibited use of weapons. People v. Beckett, 782 P.2d 812 (Colo. App. 1989), aff'd, 800 P.2d 74 (Colo. 1990).
http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics...fo=off&searchtype=get&search=C.R.S.+18-12-106
So many things wrong here..What should someone expect from a summons for Prohibited Use of Weapons in Colorado. The gun was unloaded but the person was intoxicated and sitting in a car parked at his home. Also, the gun was not concealed.
So if your intoxicated and someone bust into your house or comes on your property endangering you or family members lives you can't because your intoxicated?There is a problem here and it needs to be corrected.
A citizen can be prosecuted if he is intoxicated, in his own home, and uses a firearm to defend himself. What difference is it if he is in a vehicle on his own property.
Very bad.
Mine are straight bud I was asking a question isn't this what it's all about questions and HOPEFULLY ANSWERS?Get your priorities straight.
First off my priority's are straight. But the above statements got me wondering. Say it's new years eve your weapon is in a lock box and everyone is celebrating. An intruder comes onto your property and starts threatening you or family with a weapon. Do you just stand there and watch your family get injured or worse because you had a few drinks? I understand the rules as far as alcohol and whatever is legal in other states I was raised right and raised mine the same. But a person should not be judged just because they ask a question that may be silly for others. People surf the web all the time for questions and some end up here. But if the question should arise it should not be delt with by "get your priority's straight"Really, how do you know they are straight if you had to troll (as in fishing) the question?
Why don't you tell US your "answer" and we'll criticize it.
Get your priorities straight.
I'll find another place for q&a I was just curious and I wasn't trolling sorry to bother everyone I just got on here cause I seen Oklahoma open carry
On my property, in my home, my gun is not in a lockbox even if I am knee-walking commode hugging power puking sick. That was a long time ago that, for instance I drank my Dolphins.
Now, what is your answer that you still haven't given?
I'll find another place for q&a I was just curious and I wasn't trolling sorry to bother everyone I just got on here cause I seen Oklahoma open carry
snipp
More importantly, your pushing another member to admit to a similar violation of law may be a violation of rule #15:
(15) WE ADVOCATE FOR THE 'LAW-ABIDING' ONLY: Posts advocating illegal acts of any kind are NOT welcome here. Even if you feel that a law is unconstitutional we do not break it, we repeal it or defeat it in the courts.
Charles
Thank you sir that's all I was asking for was an answer you are a gentleman of knowledge and I appreciate it
Seems some folks think we have so many allies that we can afford to run off those we have for trivial reasons.
Nightmare, Kwaynem asked a question about the legality of using a gun to defend himself and family, in his home, while he happens to be intoxicated. Seems a perfectly legit question to me. What do you think justified the wholly unpleasant and terse response you gave him? Is there a prior history there I've missed?
Simply and shortly put, lighten up and maybe don't assume the worst possible interpretation of every post.
Fact is, as stupid, unjust, and flat out wrong as the law may be, in some jurisdictions the law on the books is just as JoeSparky summarized rather clearly. Worse, when taken together with what constitutes "possession" in other cases, one might conclude that in some jurisdictions a gun owner violates the law by being intoxicated inside his own home if any of his guns are in the home at all: whether locked up or not. After all, the drunk home-owner has the key or combo to the safe doesn't he? He is in legal "possession" of the guns while he is intoxicated even if they are not on his person.
I don't drink so not an issue 99.99% of the time. But on the rare occasion I might be impaired on pain meds post medical treatment????
Risk of prosecution is probably quite low in most sensible jurisdictions even if the gun were used in defense of self/family while at home and intoxicated. But the law is there. And needs to be changed rather than merely ignored and violated.
Depending on your jurisdiction you may be admitting to having committed a crime.
More importantly, your pushing another member to admit to a similar violation of law may be a violation of rule #15:
(15) WE ADVOCATE FOR THE 'LAW-ABIDING' ONLY: Posts advocating illegal acts of any kind are NOT welcome here. Even if you feel that a law is unconstitutional we do not break it, we repeal it or defeat it in the courts.
I will go so far as to support amnesty for a prohibited person whose violation of an anti possession law came to light only because he was in fear for his life and used a gun in lawful self-defense. Of course, I also don't think we should have any "prohibited persons" walking the streets unsupervised. But as a first step, let's stop throwing guys into jail because their technically illegally possessed gun was used to save their life.
But until such time as we get the laws changed, forum rules prohibit advocating that anyone possess a gun while not legally permitted to possess a gun. And in many jurisdictions, that includes while being intoxicated. Sadly, I've yet to read such a law that had an exception for ones own home, camp, or other property.
Charles
Didn't mean to change the subject just thought it kind of pertained to property issues no need in response I won't be back again sorry for trolling wasn't my intentionThank you sir that's all I was asking for was an answer you are a gentleman of knowledge and I appreciate it
18-12-106. Prohibited use of weapons
(d) The person has in his or her possession a firearm while the person is under the influence of intoxicating liquor or of a controlled substance, as defined in section 18-18-102 (5). Possession of a permit issued under section 18-12-105.1, as it existed prior to its repeal, or possession of a permit or a temporary emergency permit issued pursuant to part 2 of this article is no defense to a violation of this subsection (1).
Common sense definition of "possession", as it is used in subsection (1)(d) is the actual or physical control of a firearm. People v. Garcia, 197 Colo. 550, 595 P.2d 228 (1979).
The determination of whether or not a firearm is within one's actual or physical control is a question of fact for the jury. However, it is clear that the mere ownership of a firearm is not sufficient to constitute "possession" under the statute. Some of the factors which could be considered by the trier of fact in
making this determination are: (1) the proximity of the defendant to the firearm; (2) the ordinary place of storage of the firearm; (3) the defendant's awareness of the presence of the firearm; (4) locks or other physical impediments which preclude ready access to the firearm.
Failure to define "under the influence of intoxicating liquor", if error, was harmless, where defendant, charged with violation of this section, testified that he was too drunk to drive. People v. Beckett, 782 P.2d 812 (Colo. App. 1989), aff'd, 800 P.2d 74 (Colo. 1990).
Possession of a firearm while intoxicated is a strict liability offense, therefore, the trial court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury that "knowingly" was an element of the offense. People v. Wilson, 972 P.2d 701 (Colo. App. 1998).
Self-defense is not a valid defense to the crime of prohibited use of weapons. People v. Beckett, 782 P.2d 812 (Colo. App. 1989), aff'd, 800 P.2d 74 (Colo. 1990).
"In May 1987, the defendant and his friend, while attending a party, became involved in an altercation with Ralph Cirillo and two of his friends. As the defendant left the party and Cirillo and his friends followed him to his car, the defendant raised his hand to one of Cirillo's friends and stated, "You're this close to death." When the defendant reached his car, he reached under the front seat, pulled out an automatic pistol, pointed it at Cirillo, and stated, "This is all it takes, pal." Subsequently, the defendant was disarmed and restrained until the police arrived. The defendant testified at trial that Cirillo and his friends were large persons, that they were angry, and that he was afraid Cirillo and his two friends would harm him."
Didn't mean to change the subject just thought it kind of pertained to property issues no need in response I won't be back again sorry for trolling wasn't my intention