PDA

View Full Version : Does Aurora Really Ban "Firearm Discharge" within City Limits?



james_bond_007
08-25-2012, 21:04
http://library.municode.com/index.aspx?clientID=10331&stateID=6&statename=Colorado

Seems like in Aurora one can CCW http://library.municode.com/HTML/10331/level4/PTIICOOR_CH94OFMIPR_ARTIVOFAGPUPESA_DIV2WE.html#PT IICOOR_CH94OFMIPR_ARTIVOFAGPUPESA_DIV2WE_S94-144UNCODIWE

Sec. 94-144. - Unlawful concealment and display of a weapon.http://library.municode.com/images/hyperlink.png
(a)
Concealment. Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section it shall be unlawful for any person to wear under his or her clothes or carry concealed on or about his or her person any illegal or deadly weapon, including but not by way of limitation any firearm, slingshot, razor, dirk, dagger, or any knife, nunchaku or throwing stars.
(b)
It shall not be an offense of subsection (a) of this section if the defendant was:
(1)
In compliance with the provisions of section 94-144.5 (http://library.municode.com/HTML/10331/level4/PTIICOOR_CH94OFMIPR_ARTIVOFAGPUPESA_DIV2WE.html#PT IICOOR_CH94OFMIPR_ARTIVOFAGPUPESA_DIV2WE_S94-144.5LAPOHAMOVE), if applicable; or
(2)
A person in a private automobile or other means of private conveyance who carries a knife for lawful protection of such person's or another's person or property while traveling, or
(3)
In his or her own dwelling or place of business or on property owned or under his or her control at the time of the alleged violation; or
(4)
A person who, at the time of carrying the concealed weapon held a valid permit to carry such concealed weapon issued pursuant to C.R.S. 18-12-105.1 as it existed prior to its repeal, or, if the weapon involved was a handgun, held a valid permit to carry a concealed handgun or a temporary emergency permit issued pursuant to part 2 of article 12 of title 18 of the Colorado Revised Statutes; except that it shall be an offense under this section if the person was carrying a concealed handgun in violation of the carrying restrictions contained in C.R.S. 18-12-214; or
(5)
A peace officer, as described in Section 16-2.5-101, C.R.S. when carrying a weapon in conformance with the policy of the employing agency as provided in Section 16-2.5-101(2) C.R.S.; or
(6)
A United States Probation Officer or a United States Pretrial Services Officer while on duty and serving in the State of Colorado under the authority of rules and regulations promulgated by the Judicial Conference of the United States.
(c)
Display. It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly, recklessly, or negligently display, flourish, or brandish any illegal or deadly weapon, including but not limited to those enunciated in subsection (a) of this section, in such manner as to reasonably cause fear of bodily injury to another person.

(Code 1979, § 27-113; Ord. No. 95-52, exhibit A (§ 27-113), 9-11-95; Ord. No. 2001-54, § 2, 8-20-2001; Ord. No. 2003-56, § 1, 9-8-2003; Ord. No. 2010-24, § 4, 7-12-2010)
Sec. 94-144.5. - Lawful possession of a handgun in a motor vehicle.http://library.municode.com/images/hyperlink.png
(a)
Without a permit. It shall be lawful for any person to carry, conceal or otherwise possess a handgun, whether loaded or unloaded, while in a private automobile or other means of private conveyance if carrying the handgun for a legal use while traveling, or is engaged in hunting activities within the state.
(b)
With a permit. It shall be lawful for any person to carry, conceal or otherwise possess a handgun, whether loaded or unloaded, in a private automobile or other means of private conveyance if the person who, at the time of carrying the weapon, held a valid permit to carry such concealed handgun issued pursuant to C.R.S. 18-12-105.1, as it existed prior to its repeal, or held a valid permit to carry a concealed handgun or a temporary emergency permit issued pursuant to part 2 of article 12 of title 18 of the Colorado Revised Statutes; except that it shall not be lawful if the person was carrying a concealed handgun in violation of the carrying constrictions contained in C.R.S 18-12-214.
(c)
For purposes of this section travel shall be as defined in Webster's II New Riverside University Dictionary (1988); "To move from one place to another."

(Ord. No. 2010-24, § 5, 7-12-2010)


and even practice shooting at a range
but not exercise self-defense
http://library.municode.com/HTML/10331/level4/PTIICOOR_CH94OFMIPR_ARTIVOFAGPUPESA_DIV2WE.html#PT IICOOR_CH94OFMIPR_ARTIVOFAGPUPESA_DIV2WE_S94-144UNCODIWE


Sec. 94-146. - Discharge within city prohibited; exceptions; range rules.http://library.municode.com/images/hyperlink.png
(a)
It shall be unlawful for any person to fire, shoot, or discharge any firearm; crossbow; bow and arrow; slingshot; blowgun; BB gun or pellet gun, whether powered with gunpowder, compressed air, or gas cartridges; gas gun; or any weapon whatsoever within the city limits. However, such discharge, firing, or shooting by any law enforcement officer, federal, state, county, or city, in the course of his or her official duty shall not be deemed a violation of this subsection, and such discharge, firing, or shooting at commercial, private, or public shooting ranges or by authorized classes of schools or universities at all times under proper instruction and supervision as may be authorized or permitted by law shall not be deemed a violation of this subsection.
(b)
All firearm shooting ranges shall operate pursuant to rules and regulations regarding safety and patron conduct at the range. Such rules and regulations shall be submitted to and approved by the chief of police.

(Code 1979, § 27-115)



Seems to try to skirt state law...


http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/colorado/

18-12-107.5. Illegal discharge of a firearm - penalty

(1) Any person who knowingly or recklessly discharges a firearm into any dwelling or any other building or occupied structure, or into any motor vehicle occupied by any person, commits the offense of illegal discharge of a firearm.

(2) It shall not be an offense under this section if the person who discharges a firearm in violation of subsection (1) of this section is a peace officer as described in section 16-2.5-101 (http://web.lexisnexis.com/research/buttonTFLink?_m=18b00dd2832c158b6157519aabc5f727&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDAT A%5bC.R.S.%2018-12-107.5%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=4&_butStat=0&_butNum=2&_butInline=1&_butinfo=COCODE%2016-2.5-101&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=1&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLzVzB-zSkAb&_md5=b3998689911852f3070b3e60613a7346), C.R.S., acting within the scope of such officer's authority and in the performance of such officer's duties.

(3) Illegal discharge of a firearm is a class 5 felony.

HISTORY: Source:. L. 93: Entire section added, p. 968, § 1, effective July 1.L. 2003: (2) amended, p. 1616, § 15, effective August 6.


ANNOTATION

This section was intended to punish random drive-by and walk-by gunfire directed at occupied structures or vehicles from outside such premises or vehicles. People v. Simpson, 93 P.3d 551 (Colo. App. 2003).

The plain language of this section does not require that a bullet actually end up inside a house. The court of appeals held that firing a bullet into materials of which the house is built, in this case the shingles on the roof, violates this section. There is no requirement in the section that the bullet pierce the exterior of the building and enter the interior of the house. People v. Serpa, 992 P.2d 682 (Colo. App. 1999).

The second clause of subsection (1) does not require proof that a bullet actually entered the passenger compartment of the vehicle and the absence of such a requirement is consistent with the general assembly's clear intention to criminalize the discharge of a firearm into an occupied vehicle irrespective of whether an occupant is endangered. People v. White, 55 P.3d 220 (Colo. App. 2002).

Illegal discharge of a firearm is not a lesser included offense of attempted first degree murder after deliberation. Discharge of a firearm is not an element of attempted first degree murder after deliberation. People v. Beatty, 80 P.3d 847 (Colo. App. 2003).

Court erred by failing to instruct on self-defense. Illegal discharge of a firearm is a general intent offense to the extent that it involves a defendant who acts "knowingly", and self-defense is an affirmative defense to a general intent crime. People v. Taylor, 230 P.3d 1227 (Colo. App. 2009), overruled on other grounds in People v. Pickering, -- P.3d -- (Colo. 2011).

Circuits
08-26-2012, 00:10
Most cities ban it outright with exceptions for lawful self defense. The Springs, for one, has an exception for "shooting galleries" which must be licensed as such by the city.

spqrzilla
08-26-2012, 09:43
The OP seems confused by the fact that there is a state law regarding discharge near dwellings. That state law does not preempt Aurora's municipal ordinance.

james_bond_007
08-26-2012, 10:14
The OP seems confused by the fact that there is a state law regarding discharge near dwellings. That state law does not preempt Aurora's municipal ordinance.

"Confused" is not the right word...unaware, uninformed, etc. better describe my position.

Also, I was focusing on the the text in "purple", regarding self-defense.

I'll look for this law...if you can find reference, please post the reference.

Thanks for pointing this out. I always like learning ...

Zundfolge
08-26-2012, 10:21
Virtually every community in the US has an ordnance against the discharge of firearms within the city limits. As was stated above, self defense is what is called an "affirmative defense" against the charge.

Basically an "affirmative defense" is a defense one uses when one violates a law because the consequences of NOT violating the law would be grave injury or death (another example would be running a red light because there's a tanker truck jackknifed and sliding toward you and if you didn't run the light you'd have been hit).

The ordinances against discharge of firearms in the city limits are to keep bubba from plinking cans in his back yard or Jose from celebrating new years by shooting in the air, NOT to make armed self defense illegal.

james_bond_007
08-26-2012, 10:37
Virtually every community in the US has an ordnance against the discharge of firearms within the city limits. As was stated above, self defense is what is called an "affirmative defense" against the charge.

Basically an "affirmative defense" is a defense one uses when one violates a law because the consequences of NOT violating the law would be grave injury or death (another example would be running a red light because there's a tanker truck jackknifed and sliding toward you and if you didn't run the light you'd have been hit).

The ordinances against discharge of firearms in the city limits are to keep bubba from plinking cans in his back yard or Jose from celebrating new years by shooting in the air, NOT to make armed self defense illegal.

I cannot disagree. I have seen, though, that the state laws often cite some of the typical and acceptable "affirmative defenses".


The reason why I posted this in the first place was not to debate this part of Aurora's municipal code, but rather to try and find out (with the help of forum members) if Aurora had "banned" CCW, as has been reported on major News programs, websites, etc.

It seems that this fact was mis-reported and CCW is in fact OK in Aurora, if all legal requirements are satisfied.

Others sites "corrected" this reporting oversight by saying "CCW is OK, but discharging a firearm is illegal". It seems this is a "true" statement; however, someone discharging a firearm for self-defense purposes would be able to use this as an affirmative defense (i.e., Admits that that yes, they did discharge a firearm and violate the laws, "the affirm" part, but had a justifiable reason to do so "the defense" part).

Zundfolge
08-26-2012, 12:51
The reason why I posted this in the first place was not to debate this part of Aurora's municipal code, but rather to try and find out (with the help of forum members) if Aurora had "banned" CCW, as has been reported on major News programs, websites, etc.


Ahh. I believe the confusion over the law stems from the fact that in 2002 Colorado Concealed Carry law changed DRASTICALLY.

Prior to 2002 Colorado was a "May Issue" CCW state (like California or New York) and the law gave wide discretion to local governments to write law around CCW however they wanted (for example El Paso County was basically Shall issue long before the rest of the state, so little changed here in '02). So it's probable that Aurora DID ban CCW prior to 2002 (those laws would still appear on the books, but other, newer laws would abrogate them).

The "Shall Issue CCW" law of 2002 had within it language that prevented local governments from preempting the new state law (and frankly this was the primary function of the new law. Shall issue was just a side benefit).

Most people outside the shooting and gun rights communities don't really know what the law is or was ... ironically many of these ignorant souls are in media (and unfortunately a few in law enforcement).

Irving
08-26-2012, 13:00
I think Zundfolge nailed it. It has been 10 years since the law changed, but there are still people who believe that you can't have a gun in your car in Aurora and Denver. Some of them are police officers. I think at one point, Aurora even had to release a pamphlet to their officers explaining the change and saying that you can't just beat up and arrest people in Aurora for having a gun in their car anymore.

james_bond_007
08-26-2012, 14:10
Ahh. I believe the confusion over the law stems from the fact that in 2002 Colorado Concealed Carry law changed DRASTICALLY.

Prior to 2002 Colorado was a "May Issue" CCW state (like California or New York) and the law gave wide discretion to local governments to write law around CCW however they wanted (for example El Paso County was basically Shall issue long before the rest of the state, so little changed here in '02). So it's probable that Aurora DID ban CCW prior to 2002 (those laws would still appear on the books, but other, newer laws would abrogate them).

The "Shall Issue CCW" law of 2002 had within it language that prevented local governments from preempting the new state law (and frankly this was the primary function of the new law. Shall issue was just a side benefit).

Most people outside the shooting and gun rights communities don't really know what the law is or was ... ironically many of these ignorant souls are in media (and unfortunately a few in law enforcement).

Summed up to me as "Careless reporting and investigation"....that might explain it.

...and to think that just doing a quick search on the Aurora Municipal Code quickly showed me that CCW is "OK" in Aurora. That's partly why I was puzzled: I found it easily and wondered "What am I missing that the reporters are finding"...

Apparently, it was the reporters that were missing something.[Coffee]

Thank you for your help.

J
08-26-2012, 14:38
There is also a well established doctrine of competing harms. Wherein a person who is otherwise lawfully acting is presenter with a choice. In said choice there are two options, both harmful or illegal. It is recognized that it is lawful to commit the act that has less harm.

This is a good example. It is illegal to discharge a firearm, but there is far greater harm not discharging a firearm to stop a lunatics deranged shooting spree.

Google doctrine of competing harms for more info.

spqrzilla
08-26-2012, 15:01
What the reporters were "finding" was false talking points from an old gun control website's pile of horse manure.