Colorado make my day better law.

[TheSparkens]

Kind of a surprise considering the state of the state.
http://www.9news.com/news/local/article.aspx?storyid=63848

[Gman]

I got wind of this from the NRA. It appears that it's an attempt at putting 'castle doctrine' in place. I love it! No need to retreat. If you attack me in a place that I'm legally allowed to be, I can shoot first and ask questions later. Someone breaking into my home or vehicle with me in it is assumed to be a threat. The other good point is that the property owner can't be sued.

Did you know about this little nugget?
Legislators consider changes to concealed weapons permit laws (http://www.greeleytrib.com/article/20070126/NEWS/101260090)

DENVER -- When lawmakers allowed Coloradans to obtain permits for concealed weapons four years ago, part of the package included a statewide database that tracks who gets them.

That database is supposed to expire this year, and at least four bills are floating in the Colorado General Assembly regarding its future.

State Sen. Scott Renfroe, R-Greeley, is carrying a bill that would eliminate the database altogether. Other lawmakers have offered bills to the opposite effect.

Another Republican testified this week about a bill that would extend its life.

State Rep. Al White, R-Winter Park, told the House Judiciary Committee he would try to toe a very fine line with his measure, House Bill 1174.

"I believe this database is an important piece of being able to maintain our concealed-carry permit laws as they have existed," he told the committee shortly before his bill was approved 7-4 Wednesday. It now heads to the full House for consideration; White doesn't have a Senate sponsor yet.

White was the co-sponsor of the original 2003 measure that allowed Coloradans to carry concealed weapons, and he said the pro-gun lobby has labeled him a sellout for his latest bill.

"I'm being portrayed by some members of the gun community as being a communist," he said after the hearing. "I'm getting a lot of negative vituperation."

White said he owns a gun and supports the right of Coloradans to carry concealed ones. But if the database tied to that goes away, he said, many people who supported the original law might turn against it.

That includes the County Sheriffs of Colorado and the Colorado Association of Chiefs of Police.

Weld County Sheriff John Cooke -- whose office is responsible for issuing the permits -- opts not to enter permitees' information into the database. Most counties do use it.

"I don't see the need to put law-abiding citizens in that kind of database," Cooke said. "I am at odds with the Colorado sheriffs."

Our state issues are located here;
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/State/Specific.aspx?st=CO

Also, HB 1011, championed by State Representative Cory Gardner (R-63), will be heard next Wednesday, January 31, in the House Judiciary Committee. HB1011, the "Castle Doctrine" self-defense bill, simply states that if a criminal breaks into your home, your occupied vehicle, or your place of business, the victim does not have a “duty to retreat.” The bill also provides protection from criminal prosecution and civil litigation for those who defend themselves from criminal attack.

Please contact your State Representatives at (303) 866-2904, or if outside of Denver, at (800) 811-7647, and urge them to oppose HB 1174 and to support HB 1011.

[pickenup]

Lets help.

The squeeky wheel gets the grease.
Make some noise.

[newracer]

HB1011 is sneaky,

HB1011 (http://www.leg.state.co.us/Clics/Clics2007A/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/2909DE770F8692B387257251007B67DF?Open&file=1011_01.pdf)

It extending the protection to businesses and vehicles but some what strips the protection from the home. Now you have a "reasonable" fear of in danger of serious bodily injury or death. Check out what is lined out. That is what will be removed The old wording left no doubt about the intent of the law.

[HunterCO]

That bill is a joke first off no Sheriff was ever required to enter the names which is why Cook does not and Fred of park county does not. In other words it's a smoke screen nobody had to in the first place some do some don't.

How about a bill that does not permit them to do so period?

[Gman]

How about a bill that does not permit them to do so period?If they let the database sunset, it will go away and the Sheriffs won't have the option.

newracer, your link no workie. I found the text of the bill. I don't think it's "sneaky" at all. When I lived in TX you could use deadly force if someone entered your home, but there was a catch. You had to state that you feared for your life or bodily harm. With HB 1011, it is assumed that it is reasonable for someone in their homes to fear bodily harm from someone that unlawfully enters your home. You don't have to be explicit in stating your fear nor do you have the burden of identifying the intent of an intruder as in the old law. I can't find the forum tags to identify text that has been struck through, so anything in red is being removed from the exisiting law. All CAPS in words identifies additions to the law.

18-1-704.5. Use of deadly physical force against an intruder.
5 (1) The general assembly hereby recognizes that the citizens of Colorado
6 have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes DWELLINGS,
7 PLACES OF BUSINESS, AND VEHICLES.

The edit of the pertinent info in modifying the old law;

Notwithstanding the provisions of section 18-1-704, any
16 occupant of a dwelling, PLACE OF BUSINESS, OR VEHICLE is justified in
17 using any degree of physical force, including deadly physical force,
18 against another person when that other person has made an unlawful entry
19 into the dwelling, PLACE OF BUSINESS, OR VEHICLE, and when the
20 occupant has a reasonable belief that such other person has committed a
21 crime in the dwelling in addition to the uninvited entry, or is committing
22 or intends to commit a crime against a person or property in addition to
23 the uninvited entry, and when the occupant reasonably believes that such
24 other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against
25 any occupant HOLDS A REASONABLE FEAR THAT THE OTHER PERSON
26 CREATES AN IMMINENT PERIL OF DEATH OR SERIOUS BODILY INJURY TO
27 THE OCCUPANT OR A THIRD PERSON.The law looks good to me where the burden of proving a "reasonable fear" is no longer required. Please let me know where I'm wrong.

Let's see if this link works;
HOUSE BILL 07-1011--PDF Format (http://www.leg.state.co.us/Clics/Clics2007A/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/2909DE770F8692B387257251007B67DF?Open&file=1011_01.pdf)

[newracer]

corrected my link

[MuzzleFlash]

I only see one flaw in the "Castle" legislation.

The new law does not entitle the occupant to a presumption in the use of deadly physical force when the occupant is engaged in any crime. At first that sounds OK until you think about it. Why not make the standard a "crime of violence". Otherwise, you could be making a MP3 from your brother's music collection at the time of the invasion and be ineligible for the law's protection. Or you could be speeding 3mph over the limit when attacked by an aggressor and ibe neligible for a presumption under the law when you respond in self defense.

FWIW, Colorado courts have never ruled that one has a duty to retreat before using deadly force to meet deadly force. In fact, they have ruled that there is NO duty to retreat.

Some excerpts from a recent appeal of a 2nd degree murder conviction to the Colorado Supreme Court (People v. Garcia):

"The supreme court also holds that the evidence in this case gives rise to a no-duty to retreat instruction and that the trial court committed reversible error in refusing to give such an instruction to the jury."
....
"The court also held that the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury that Defendant had no duty to retreat before exercising her right to self-defense. Id. at 220. Finally, the court held that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury that one may justifiably use deadly force to prevent a sexual assault."
....
"In Idrogo, 818 P.2d at 754-55, and most recently in People v. Toler, 9 P.3d 341, 347 (Colo. 2000), we reviewed the status of the duty to retreat rule in Colorado and noted that beginning with this court’s decision in Boykin v. People, 22 Colo. 496, 45 P. 419, (1896), Colorado had joined the majority of jurisdictions that had abandoned the common law duty of a victim to retreat before resorting to force to defend against an aggressor. Toler, 9 P.3d at 348; Idrogo, 818 P.2d at 755-56. This principle was expressly adopted by the General Assembly when it adopted the self-defense statute codified in section 18-1-704. Toler, 9 P.3d at 349; see Idrogo, 818 P.2d at 755."

[HunterCO]

How about a bill that does not permit them to do so period?If they let the database sunset, it will go away and the Sheriffs won't have the option.

Wrong they had no requirement before the "shall issue law" ever passed and many Sheriffs were doing it. There is no requirement as of right now hence why some Sheriffs don't report it.

The current law simply says they must report the amount of permits issued, denied ect. NOTHING in it says they must enter individuals in CBI as being permit holders.

That law is a smoke screen and changes nothing the Sheriffs who choose to enter permit holders will do so. The ones that choose not to will do so it changes nothing.

[SigsRule]

How about a bill that does not permit them to do so period?If they let the database sunset, it will go away and the Sheriffs won't have the option.

newracer, your link no workie. I found the text of the bill. I don't think it's "sneaky" at all. When I lived in TX you could use deadly force if someone entered your home, but there was a catch. You had to state that you feared for your life or bodily harm. With HB 1011, it is assumed that it is reasonable for someone in their homes to fear bodily harm from someone that unlawfully enters your home. You don't have to be explicit in stating your fear nor do you have the burden of identifying the intent of an intruder as in the old law. I can't find the forum tags to identify text that has been struck through, so anything in red is being removed from the exisiting law. All CAPS in words identifies additions to the law.

18-1-704.5. Use of deadly physical force against an intruder.
5 (1) The general assembly hereby recognizes that the citizens of Colorado
6 have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes DWELLINGS,
7 PLACES OF BUSINESS, AND VEHICLES.

The edit of the pertinent info in modifying the old law;

Notwithstanding the provisions of section 18-1-704, any
16 occupant of a dwelling, PLACE OF BUSINESS, OR VEHICLE is justified in
17 using any degree of physical force, including deadly physical force,
18 against another person when that other person has made an unlawful entry
19 into the dwelling, PLACE OF BUSINESS, OR VEHICLE, and when the
20 occupant has a reasonable belief that such other person has committed a
21 crime in the dwelling in addition to the uninvited entry, or is committing
22 or intends to commit a crime against a person or property in addition to
23 the uninvited entry, and when the occupant reasonably believes that such
24 other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against
25 any occupant HOLDS A REASONABLE FEAR THAT THE OTHER PERSON
26 CREATES AN IMMINENT PERIL OF DEATH OR SERIOUS BODILY INJURY TO
27 THE OCCUPANT OR A THIRD PERSON.The law looks good to me where the burden of proving a "reasonable fear" is no longer required. Please let me know where I'm wrong.

Let's see if this link works;
HOUSE BILL 07-1011--PDF Format (http://www.leg.state.co.us/Clics/Clics2007A/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/2909DE770F8692B387257251007B67DF?Open&file=1011_01.pdf)

If the red is being deleted and the CAPS is being added than the revised wording would seem to absolutely require you to prove you had a resonable fear the other person creates an IMMINENT PERIL OF DEATH OR SERIOUS BODILY INJURY ... So a skinny teen aged gang member whom you shot when you caught him inside your DWELLING uninvited shows up in court, dressed nicely and claims they were in the house by mistake and you now have to prove you had a reasonable fear of death or injury whereas before you just had to prove a reasonable belief a crime was being committed or about to. Sounds like a step backwards to me. In the previous case, if they broke in any reasonable person would belive they were about to commit a crime - like stealing something at a minimum. In the new case, now a reasonable person has to fear DEATH or SERIOUS BODILY INJURY. There's a lot of naive sheeple out there who don't recognize evil and would say they wouldn't have been in fear of DEATH or SERIOUS BODILY INJURY. Or am I wrong?

[XJ]

Starting from the next part of line 27, which is where the previous poster stopped his paste. The next part seems to define when you presume this reasonable fear.

AN OCCUPANT OF A DWELLING, PLACE OF BUSINESS, OR VEHICLE IS PRESUMED TO HAVE HELD A REASONABLE FEAR OF IMMINENT PERIL OF DEATH OR SERIOUS BODILY INJURY TO HIMSELF OR HERSELF OR A THIRD PERSON WHEN USING PHYSICAL FORCE THAT IS INTENDED OR LIKELY TO CAUSE DEATH OR SERIOUS BODILY HARM TO ANOTHER IF:

(a) THE PERSON AGAINST WHOM THE PHYSICAL FORCE WAS USED WAS IN THE PROCESS OF UNLAWFULLY AND FORCIBLY ENTERING, OR HAD UNLAWFULLY AND FORCIBLY ENTERED, THE DWELLING, PLACE OF BUSINESS, OR VEHICLE, OR IF THAT PERSON HAD UNLAWFULLY REMOVED, OR WAS ATTEMPTING TO UNLAWFULLY REMOVE, ANOTHER PERSON AGAINST THAT PERSON'S WILL FROM THE DWELLING, PLACE OF BUSINESS, OR VEHICLE; AND

(b) THE OCCUPANT KNEW OR HAD REASON TO BELIEVE THAT AN UNLAWFUL AND FORCIBLE ENTRY OR UNLAWFUL AND FORCIBLE ACT WAS OCCURRING.

My reading of the above: part (a) says they are in the process of coming in, or already there. OR they try and take someone away. Two seperate things. No need to get into the bad guy's means, opportunity, jeopardy, disparity of size, whatever. AND (b) you know they aren't supposed to be there or doing that.

Next is 2.5 which sets out some exceptions, which don't seem too bad as long as "unlawful activity" isn't taken to extremes (copyright violation :roll: )


Thoughts? It seems like an improvement

[SigsRule]

Starting from the next part of line 27, which is where the previous poster stopped his paste. The next part seems to define when you presume this reasonable fear.

AN OCCUPANT OF A DWELLING, PLACE OF BUSINESS, OR VEHICLE IS PRESUMED TO HAVE HELD A REASONABLE FEAR OF IMMINENT PERIL OF DEATH OR SERIOUS BODILY INJURY TO HIMSELF OR HERSELF OR A THIRD PERSON WHEN USING PHYSICAL FORCE THAT IS INTENDED OR LIKELY TO CAUSE DEATH OR SERIOUS BODILY HARM TO ANOTHER IF:

(a) THE PERSON AGAINST WHOM THE PHYSICAL FORCE WAS USED WAS IN THE PROCESS OF UNLAWFULLY AND FORCIBLY ENTERING, OR HAD UNLAWFULLY AND FORCIBLY ENTERED, THE DWELLING, PLACE OF BUSINESS, OR VEHICLE, OR IF THAT PERSON HAD UNLAWFULLY REMOVED, OR WAS ATTEMPTING TO UNLAWFULLY REMOVE, ANOTHER PERSON AGAINST THAT PERSON'S WILL FROM THE DWELLING, PLACE OF BUSINESS, OR VEHICLE; AND

(b) THE OCCUPANT KNEW OR HAD REASON TO BELIEVE THAT AN UNLAWFUL AND FORCIBLE ENTRY OR UNLAWFUL AND FORCIBLE ACT WAS OCCURRING.

My reading of the above: part (a) says they are in the process of coming in, or already there. OR they try and take someone away. Two seperate things. No need to get into the bad guy's means, opportunity, jeopardy, disparity of size, whatever. AND (b) you know they aren't supposed to be there or doing that.

Next is 2.5 which sets out some exceptions, which don't seem too bad as long as "unlawful activity" isn't taken to extremes (copyright violation :roll: )


Thoughts? It seems like an improvement

This is an improvement but there are still legal gotchas hidden in the language. For example "Unlawfully and forceably entering" - what if you left your door unlocked or it was even open? They didn't forceable enter.

I applaud the addition of vehicles to the explicit definition of where the law will apply, but what makes you think an anti-gun DA, or any DA looking to make a name before an election (think Duke Lacrosse Team) won't take "unlawful activity" to extremes (somebody else used the example of copying a DVD). Language can be very precise, yet most lawyers wield language like a weapon and can find ambiguities in even the best intentioned law. So why couldn't the lawyers have just said "commiting a felony" instead of "unlawful activity". That would have covered the obvious intent (e.g., a crack dealer shooting a rival gang member who just broke in) while not giving the criminals a free out just because you were participating in an illegal gambling operation (i.e. betting in a football pool). It's lawyers twisting the wording of the 2nd amendment that has us all worried now.

[HunterCO]

There is a big difference first of me and Gman were talking about the CCW entries in CBI that bill is a complete joke and a smoke screen.

I have a huge problem with the make my day law change.

The change to the make my day law destroys it. Read it and pay attention it takes away your right to defend your home unless of course you feel the scum bag is going to kill you.

Let me point it out.
The New proposed Law.


REASONABLE FEAR THAT THE OTHER PERSON
26 CREATES AN IMMINENT PERIL OF DEATH OR SERIOUS BODILY INJURY

Versus the old Law.

has a reasonable belief that such other person has committed a
21 crime in the dwelling in addition to the uninvited entry, or is committing
22 or intends to commit a crime against a person or property in addition to
23 the uninvited entry, and when the occupant reasonably believes that such
24 other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against
25 any occupant

Under the current law if somebody breaks into your home you can shoot the SOB as it should be. Said person does not have to forcibly enter they just have to "UNLAWFULLY ENTER" and you just have to have a "REASON TO BELIEVE THEY ARE GOING TO COMMIT A CRIME". I think it is safe to assume that if somebody comes in your home uninvited they are going to commit a crime I have no doubt any "REASONABLE” person would believe this. (in other words the jury).

Under the new law you have to have “A REASONABLE FEAR THAT THE OTHER PERSON CREATES AN IMMINENT PERIL OF DEATH OR SERIOUS BODILY INJURY”.

Under the new law as long as the intruder does not threaten you or your families life you can grab a drink and watch the A$$hole take everything he wants unless you wish to go to prison.

So who does not still see anything wrong with it? This is typical liberal BS they don't like the make my day law so they are blowing smoke up everybody’s A$$. They are trying to pull a fast one and say they are expanding it to cover vehicles and in fact they are gutting it.

[SigsRule]

That's exactly my point. Adding vehicles doesn't overcome the watering down of our rights in our DWELLING. The problem is people that get stuck on jury duty aren't very "reasonable" when the lawyers get through confusing them and there's loopholes galore in the new wording.

[Gman]

We're not talking about any requirement to add CCW holders. If the DB sunsets, it's not up to a Sheriff's discretion to add CCW holders to the statewide DB. There is no statewide DB. They couldn't add you if they wanted to. How am I not stating this clearly enough?

As to the Castle Doctrine, one must not prove a fear, but it is understood to be reasonable that one WOULD fear an intruder. Someone illegally entering your dwelling probably isn't there to award you the Publisher's Clearing House Sweepstakes. Read the entire bill. I don't think it's that complicated to figure out what it means without it being twisted into something that isn't there.
The revised law states;

AN OCCUPANT OF A DWELLING, PLACE OF BUSINESS, OR VEHICLE IS PRESUMED TO HAVE HELD A REASONABLE FEAR OF IMMINENT PERIL OF DEATH OR SERIOUS BODILY INJURY TO HIMSELF OR HERSELF OR A THIRD PERSON...

Just as we are presumed to be innocent until proven guilty, we are presumed to fear someone breaking into our homes. We don't have to prove that we had a fear of the intruder nor do we have to prove the intent of the intruder. We also don't get into a civil lawsuit by the intruder's family.

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?id=2566

HB1011, the “Castle Doctrine” self-defense bill, simply states that if a criminal breaks into your home or your place of business, you do not have a “duty to retreat.” The bill also provides protection from criminal prosecution for those who defend themselves from criminal attack.

The bill was approved by the committee with a change that removed vehicles in the fear that undercover police officers could be shot.

[SigsRule]

The revised law states;

AN OCCUPANT OF A DWELLING, PLACE OF BUSINESS, OR VEHICLE IS PRESUMED TO HAVE HELD A REASONABLE FEAR OF IMMINENT PERIL OF DEATH OR SERIOUS BODILY INJURY TO HIMSELF OR HERSELF OR A THIRD PERSON...

Just as we are presumed to be innocent until proven guilty, we are presumed to fear someone breaking into our homes. We don't have to prove that we had a fear of the intruder nor do we have to prove the intent of the intruder. We also don't get into a civil lawsuit by the intruder's family.



You're engaging in wishful thinking. You cut the quote off too soon. It states we are presumed to hold a reasonable fear "IF:" and that's followed by two clauses with multiple ORs and an AND. It's not a cut and dried presumption of reasonable fear - you'd have to show the conditions of the IF statement were met. And that's where there's weasel wording in the proposed wording. If there were no signs of a FORCEABLE entry, you could be screwed!

[HunterCO]

We're not talking about any requirement to add CCW holders. If the DB sunsets, it's not up to a Sheriff's discretion to add CCW holders to the statewide DB. There is no statewide DB. They couldn't add you if they wanted to. How am I not stating this clearly enough?

You don't understand the current law does not require them to enter anybody in to the CBI data base (This is what people are referring to as the CCW DB). The current law only requires them to report statistics as to how many permits were issued, denied, revoked ect. This bill would only remove that requirement before it sunsets. Sheriffs who enter pemitee's into CBI will continue to do so just as they did BEFORE the shall issue law. There is no such thing as a CCW specific data base it's called CBI and this bill does nothing to stop them from entering permit holders into it.



As to the Castle Doctrine, one must not prove a fear, but it is understood to be reasonable that one WOULD fear an intruder. Someone illegally entering your dwelling probably isn't there to award you the Publisher's Clearing House Sweepstakes. Read the entire bill. I don't think it's that complicated to figure out what it means without it being twisted into something that isn't there.
The revised law states;

AN OCCUPANT OF A DWELLING, PLACE OF BUSINESS, OR VEHICLE IS PRESUMED TO HAVE HELD A REASONABLE FEAR OF IMMINENT PERIL OF DEATH OR SERIOUS BODILY INJURY TO HIMSELF OR HERSELF OR A THIRD PERSON...

If you can not clearly see the difference in what is posted above in red vs what they changed it to I don't know what to say. If you don't think an over zealous prosecutor could use that new wording to hang somebody for protecting their home you must not know the legal system very well. I will take the old law hands down its worded much stronger and gives a prosecutor much less to use against somebody.



Just as we are presumed to be innocent until proven guilty, we are presumed to fear someone breaking into our homes. We don't have to prove that we had a fear of the intruder nor do we have to prove the intent of the intruder. We also don't get into a civil lawsuit by the intruder's family.

I sure wish that was the case but it's not. You will have to prove everything you claim you wouldn't. I have been there I know what it's like and I didn't even shoot anybody. I simply had a shotgun and was defending my home and ended up in court on felony charges.

[SigsRule]

+1 to what HunterCO said. I've been in the "system" myself for a civil action. The bottom line is you can be sued for anything when the lawyers get involved and will have to defend yourself regardless of the curcumstances. Any wording in the statutes that gives the slightest leeway for interpretation will become a major issue when twisted in court -especially in criminal actions.

The previous wording didn't have that leeway in the wording. The new one has lots of potential for leeway. That's why I don't like it.

[KarlPMann]

I agree 100%. The old law has been tested multiple times, including 2 challenges to it that went to the state supreme court. It has stood firm. In all known cases the person was found innocent and they could not be sued. With the current law it is the burden of the prosecutor to prove that you were not in fear of serious injury or death. That's a mighty hard task. How can he/she prove what was in your mind? (assuming you keep your MOUTH SHUT).

With the wording of this propsed law, I can see more challenges to people who have defended themselves. Personally, I'd stick with what I know works. Karl.

[Gman]

The sunset of the DB is precisely this;

18-12-206. Sheriff - issuance or denial of permits - report.
3 (3) (b) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (a) of this subsection
4 (3), on and after July 1, 2007, a sheriff shall not share information from
5 the list of permittees with a law enforcement agency for the purpose of
6 creating a statewide database of permittees, and any law enforcement
7 agency that receives information concerning permittees from a sheriff
8 shall not use the information to create or maintain a statewide database of
9 permittees. Any information concerning a permittee that is included in
10 a statewide database pursuant to paragraph (a) of this subsection (3) shall
11 be removed from the database no later than July 1, 2007.This won't be allowed to occur with the passage of HB 1174. You tell me where that allows any of what you have said, HunterCO. You can call it CBI, you can call it friggin' cauliflower for all I care, but any entries into any statewide database were supposed to be removed before July 1, 2007.

As to HB 1011, Here's how it looks after emerging from committee;

First Regular Session
Sixty-sixth General Assembly
STATE OF COLORADO
PREAMENDED
This Unofficial Version Includes Committee
Amendments Not Yet Adopted on Second Reading
LLS NO. 07-0181.01 Richard Sweetman HOUSE BILL 07-1011
House Committees Senate Committees
Judiciary
A BILL FOR AN ACT
101 CONCERNING THE USE OF PHYSICAL FORCE AGAINST A PERSON WHO
102 MAKES AN UNLAWFUL ENTRY INTO A PLACE OF BUSINESS.
Bill Summary
(Note: This summary applies to this bill as introduced and does
not necessarily reflect any amendments that may be subsequently
adopted.)
Creates a presumption that an occupant who uses deadly physical
force against an intruder has a reasonable fear of imminent death or
serious bodily injury to himself or herself or another person. Sets forth
conditions under which the presumption does not apply.
Adds vehicles and places of business to the locations in which the
presumption applies.
HOUSE SPONSORSHIP
Gardner C.,
SENATE SPONSORSHIP
Harvey, and Schultheis
-2- 1011
1 Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Colorado:
2 SECTION 1. 18-1-704.5, Colorado Revised Statutes, is amended
3 to read:
4 18-1-704.5. Use of deadly physical force against an intruder.
5 (1) The general assembly hereby recognizes that the citizens of Colorado
6 have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes DWELLINGS
7 AND PLACES OF BUSINESS.
8 (2) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 18-1-704, any
9 occupant of a dwelling OR PLACE OF BUSINESS, is justified in using any
10 degree of physical force, including deadly physical force, against another
11 person when that other person has made an unlawful entry into the
12 dwelling OR PLACE OF BUSINESS, and when the occupant has a reasonable
13 belief that such other person has committed a crime in the dwelling OR
14 PLACE OF BUSINESS in addition to the uninvited entry, or is committing or
15 intends to commit a crime against a person or property in addition to the
16 uninvited entry, and when the occupant reasonably believes that such
17 other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against
18 any occupant.
19 (3) Any occupant of a dwelling OR PLACE OF BUSINESS using
20 physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the
21 provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from
22 criminal prosecution for the use of such force.
23 (4) Any occupant of a dwelling OR PLACE OF BUSINESS using
24 physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the
25 provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from any
26 civil liability for injuries or death resulting from the use of such force.
-3- 1011
1 SECTION 2. Safety clause. The general assembly hereby finds,
2 determines, and declares that this act is necessary for the immediate
3 preservation of the public peace, health, and safety.

If it helps you make conclusions about intent, the antis are completely against the passage of HB 1011. It appears to have bipartisan support and will likely pass.

[HunterCO]

The sunset of the DB is precisely this;

18-12-206. Sheriff - "ISSUANCE OR DENIAL OF PERMITS" - "REPORT".

Does that make it clear or are you still not getting it? For the third time it has nothing to do with sheriffs entering people into CBI. Once again for the third time if it did then every county in the state would "HAVE TO ENTER PERMIT HOLDERS IN CBI". Yet some sheriffs don't and some do just as it was once again BEFORE the shall issue law. CBI is a "LAW ENFORCEMENT DATA BASE" If you actually read the law it specifically exempts them.



As to HB 1104, Here's how it looks after emerging from committee;
[quote]First Regular Session
Sixty-sixth General Assembly
STATE OF COLORADO
PREAMENDED
This Unofficial Version Includes Committee
Amendments Not Yet Adopted on Second Reading
LLS NO. 07-0181.01 Richard Sweetman HOUSE BILL 07-1011
House Committees Senate Committees
Judiciary
A BILL FOR AN ACT
101 CONCERNING THE USE OF PHYSICAL FORCE AGAINST A PERSON WHO
102 MAKES AN UNLAWFUL ENTRY INTO A PLACE OF BUSINESS.
Bill Summary
(Note: This summary applies to this bill as introduced and does
not necessarily reflect any amendments that may be subsequently
adopted.)
Creates a presumption that an occupant who uses deadly physical
force against an intruder has a reasonable fear of imminent death or
serious bodily injury to himself or herself or another person. Sets forth
conditions under which the presumption does not apply.
Adds vehicles and places of business to the locations in which the
presumption applies.
HOUSE SPONSORSHIP
Gardner C.,
SENATE SPONSORSHIP
Harvey, and Schultheis
-2- 1011
1 Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Colorado:
2 SECTION 1. 18-1-704.5, Colorado Revised Statutes, is amended
3 to read:
4 18-1-704.5. Use of deadly physical force against an intruder.
5 (1) The general assembly hereby recognizes that the citizens of Colorado
6 have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes DWELLINGS
7 AND PLACES OF BUSINESS.
8 (2) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 18-1-704, any
9 occupant of a dwelling OR PLACE OF BUSINESS, is justified in using any
10 degree of physical force, including deadly physical force, against another
11 person when that other person has made an unlawful entry into the
12 dwelling OR PLACE OF BUSINESS, and when the occupant has a reasonable
13 belief that such other person has committed a crime in the dwelling OR
14 PLACE OF BUSINESS in addition to the uninvited entry, or is committing or
15 intends to commit a crime against a person or property in addition to the
16 uninvited entry, and when the occupant reasonably believes that such
17 other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against
18 any occupant.
19 (3) Any occupant of a dwelling OR PLACE OF BUSINESS using
20 physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the
21 provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from
22 criminal prosecution for the use of such force.
23 (4) Any occupant of a dwelling OR PLACE OF BUSINESS using
24 physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the
25 provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from any
26 civil liability for injuries or death resulting from the use of such force.
-3- 1011
1 SECTION 2. Safety clause. The general assembly hereby finds,
2 determines, and declares that this act is necessary for the immediate
3 preservation of the public peace, health, and safety.

If it helps you make conclusions about intent, the antis are completely against the passage of HB 1104. It appears to have bipartisan support and will likely pass.

Well first off it is not HB1104 that is an insurance bill :P It is actually HB1011 and what you just quoted was the original make my day law not the new proposed bill.

I know you are under a lot of stress with the wife I hope she is doing better and I hope you don't take offense to anything I have posted. :cool:

[SigsRule]

Well they removed the more egregious portions but lines 12 through 18 still put "conditions" which have to be met in addition to the uninvited entry. I like it better now, but it would still give a aggressive DA opportunity to press charges and make you prove you had reasonable belief that ...

[Gman]

HunterCO, do you like kicking blind puppies or something?[wink]

First off, I never said there was a requirement to add CCW holders into CBI. I think we're both getting frustrated because we're talking about 2 different things. I'm talking about a CCW DB and you're thinking CBI. The bill in question regarding a CCW DB is HB 1174, not HB 1104, (I somehow morphed both bills together and ended up with a single insurance measure :roll: ). I fixed the FUBAR references above. Read HB 1147 here;
HB 1174--CONCERNING A REPEAL OF THE PROHIBITION AGAINST A STATEWIDE DATABASE FOR PERSONS HOLDING PERMITS TO CARRY CONCEALED HANDGUNS. (http://www.leg.state.co.us/Clics/Clics2007A/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/B8164A7EED081096872572640063E1AE?Open&file=1174_ren.pdf)

The original make my day law did not include businesses, as the text that I quoted from HB 1011 does. Also note the dates in the posting above, 2007, and the inclusion of "vehicles" in the summary even though they were removed from the text of the bill.

The wife is doing better. She'll be coming home in a little over a week. As to stress, you have no idea. Work sucks to high heaven.

...and then I come here and get abused by my shooting buddies.[abused]

When is the snow going to thaw? I need to throw some lead. [postal]

[HunterCO]

If they would have left it alone and simply added the businesses to it I would have no problem with it. They changed the wording big time and I will fight it to the death the Demonrats gutted it.

Glad to hear the wife is doing better and coming home soon. I hope to see you at a shoot this year.

Last but not least if your shooting buddies can't abuse you then who can. :P [abused]

[Gman]

:mrgreen:

[Gman]

It's dead now. Crisis averted. The libs said it gave business owners "a license to kill". Gee, wouldn't that have been bad for their business if they kept killing their customers? :roll:

I'm glad that our Congressional sessions are short enough that they can't screw up everything in a single session.