new legislation for Colorado

[Mountain Man]

I have been keeping an eye on proposed legislation in Colorado. Here is a link if you want to see who is doing what.

http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics2013A/cslFrontPages.nsf/HomeSplash?OpenForm


So far nothing incredible has been proposed. I'm expecting a mirror of Federal law and use Colorado as a test case. (this concerns me)

I did find one House Bill that peaks my interest. Mark Foote (D) Boulder has put up HB-1043 which changes the definition of Deadly weapon regarding firearms. Specifically removing wording loaded or unloaded and in the manner in which it is used. Unfortunately I couldn't cut and paste. My computer won't open a word or PDF document so I can't paste the exact wording.


While it looks innocent enough it could change several of our laws in a negative manner. I want to research it a bit further before I say which ones but it has potential to affect several laws in a manner that would make something legal now illegal.

Take a look at it and look at our assault laws and menacing etc.

[longbow]

Thanks for posting this

[Aloha_Shooter]

A BILL FOR AN ACT

101

CONCERNING THE STATUTORY DEFINITION OF A DEADLY WEAPON.Bill Summary

(Note: This summary applies to this bill as introduced and doesnot reflect any amendments that may be subsequently adopted. If this billpasses third reading in the house of introduction, a bill summary thatapplies to the reengrossed version of this bill will be available athttp://www.leg.state.co.us/billsummaries.)

Under current law, for the purposes of criminal law, a deadly weapon is defined as a firearm, whether loaded or unloaded; a knife; abludgeon; or any other weapon, device, instrument, material, orsubstance, whether animate or inanimate, that in the manner it is used orintended to be used is capable of producing death or serious bodily injury.The bill modifies this definition so that a firearm, whether loadedor unloaded, qualifies as a deadly weapon regardless of the manner in

HOUSE SPONSORSHIP

Foote,

SENATE SPONSORSHIP

(None),

Shading denotes HOUSE amendment. Double underlining denotes SENATE amendment.

Capital letters indicate new material to be added to existing statute.Dashes through the words indicate deletions from existing statute.
which it is used or intended to be used.

Note -- can't use overstrike font so I'm making additions blue and deletions red.




Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Colorado:


SECTION 1. In Colorado Revised Statutes, 18-1-901, amend (3)(e) as follows:

18-1-901. Definitions. (3) (e) "Deadly weapon" means A FIREARM, WHETHER LOADED OR UNLOADED, AND any of the following which in the manner it is used or intended to be used is capable of producing death or serious bodily injury:
(I) A firearm, whether loaded or unloaded;
(II) A knife;
(III) A bludgeon; or
(IV) Any other weapon, device, instrument, material, or substance, whether animate or inanimate.

[MarkCO]

That does not seem to even be a starter as it confuses the legal defintion. The re-write means a firearm "AND any" which would combine it to two weapons. That will go nowhere.

OTOH, HB 13-1048 seeks to extend the "Make my Day Law" to business owners, managers and employees.

[Aloha_Shooter]

Yeah, I know what you mean. I figured that was typical of a Boulderite (not understanding plain English). I don't know what he intended to do with the suggested change but the plain reading is that you have to also have the "knife, bludgeon or any other weapon" in order to make the firearm (loaded or unloaded) into a deadly weapon. Now if he had said "OR" ... then he'd be divorcing the firearm from the manner of use or intent so a firearm would be considered deadly no matter what while a knife or bludgeon would only be considered deadly if used or intended to be used in a deadly manner.

Eh, what can I say, Denverites and Boulderites are idiots. [blah-blah]

[Ingman]

I don't get what the author hopes to accomplish by redefining "deadly weapon".

[hatidua]

I don't get what the author hopes to accomplish by redefining "deadly weapon".

resume' fodder

[SNAFU]

Hold on just a minute. ;)
So any CAR TRUCK,pen,pncil...ect ect ,,could be considered a DEADLY weapon?

"Under current law, for the purposes of criminal law, a deadly weapon is defined as a firearm, whether loaded or unloaded; a knife; abludgeon; or any other weapon, device, instrument, material, orsubstance, whether animate or inanimate, that in the manner it is used orintended to be used is capable of producing death or serious bodily injury."


Can you say "sarcasim"?

[MarkCO]

Yes. If I let a hungry Bengal tiger into your house with the intent of it causing you harm, I could be charged with attempted murder, or murder if succesful. Not sure where the question is. Most codified laws in the US come from old manuscripts that have a very similar definition.

[DHC]

The fundamental difference is that the revised definition states simply a firearm is a deadly weapon. Full stop. Previously, a firearm was only considered a deadly weapon if it was, like a knife or a bludgeon, used or intended to be used to cause death or seriously bodily harm.

If it passes, it BEGINS with the fundamental that a firearm is a deadly weapon irrespective of its use or intended use. Presumably this construction would make it easier to prosecute certain behaviors, but in any case, it most certainly eliminates any possibility of a firearm being defined as NOT a deadly weapon.

[DHC]

Thinking about it further. The earlier definition was neutral about a firearm, a knife or a bludgeon. What made them a "deadly weapon" was their use or intended use. Only THEN did inanimate objects become "deadly."

Under this revised definition, firearms are clearly and unequivocally defined as "deadly" irrespective of use of intended use. In other words - a firearm is evil by definition. This seems to be one of the tactics utilized to demonize the very idea of a firearm.

FWIW

[MarkCO]

DHC, while you are correct, the issue there is that all of the CRS dealing with intent would need to be re-written. If you cut off your buddies finger while slicing a rope with a knife and he bleeds out, you won't be charged with murder. There are other sections of the CRS that deal with intent. The sections of the CRS need to be coupled together.

Might they catch the "AND any" and change it to how you have defined it? Possibly.

[DHC]

DHC, while you are correct, the issue there is that all of the CRS dealing with intent would need to be re-written. If you cut off your buddies finger while slicing a rope with a knife and he bleeds out, you won't be charged with murder. There are other sections of the CRS that deal with intent. The sections of the CRS need to be coupled together.

Might they catch the "AND any" and change it to how you have defined it? Possibly.

Mark,

I agree with you about the revised language in its current form. However, it seems to me the motive of the author of the revision is now clear. He wants to separate the firearm from its use and user. No longer would the use/user be evil - the firearm itself will be evil. The old adage that 'guns don't kill people - people kill people' would then be obviated. Maybe I am giving them too much credit, but I believe this is exactly the effect the author intends by the revised language.

Point is just to say that we need to remain vigilant about such seemingly innocuous language changes as they may not be so innocuous after all.

[MarkCO]

Agreed.

By chance did you go to a liberal arts college or something. That is some warpage to be able to figure out what he was trying to do (presuming you are correct). [dig]

[DHC]

Agreed.

By chance did you go to a liberal arts college or something. That is some warpage to be able to figure out what he was trying to do (presuming you are correct). [dig]

No, no liberal arts background here. Just WAAAAYYYYYY too much experience resolving petty conflicts AND playing political 'chess' with some very powerful VA/DC-based law firms. I've seen this attempt at re-definition before and the statutory construction tactics they use to achieve it. Even so, it took me several reads before it began to dawn on me what they were actually doing with the revised language. It does not 'get there' in the current form, but that is only because they have a critical grammatical error creating ambiguity. This one warrants monitoring as I'd wager the language will be 'tweaked' before it appears before a vote (or is submitted to committee).

[hammer03]

SB13-009 http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics2013a/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/B27A6A9AC874B85687257AEE0057DF35?open&file=009_01.pdf

The bill authorizes a school district board of education and thegoverning board of a charter school to adopt a written policy to allow an
employee of the school district or charter school to carry a concealed
handgun on school grounds if the person holds a valid permit to carry a
concealed handgun

A step in the right direction. I'd like it to read *any permit holder or anyone legally carrying in the state* but who knows.

[BPTactical]

Really good discussion gents.
Well played.

[MarkCO]

Maybe RMGO should hire DHC. [Beer]

[DHC]

Maybe RMGO should hire DHC. [Beer]

Always enjoy supporting a worthwhile cause.

[Mountain Man]

That was my concern with the suggested verbiage. It would make a firearm a deadly weapon regardless and it removes intent from the equation. My concern would be that having a pistol in a holster on your side would know make that act felony menacing if someone was scared by it. It doesn't matter that you were hiking in bear country. That definition is used for several statues in Colorado. It would be a darned sneaky way to slide nasty things in. I was to busy to put in any meaningful research on it yesterday and today isn't looking good.

[wARmachine15]

As a side note, Representative Chris Holbert just posted on FB that a bill like ones introduced in Texas, Wyoming and Montana protecting our 2A against the federal government will be introduced in Colorado.

He has posted here recently, maybe he will stop by to discuss.

[sniper7]

I would love to see Chris' bill go somewhere and actually get signed...but I am 99.99% sure it won't.

read today in the USA today all the different legislation across the country. CA, trying to go further, NY, trying to go further, DC...already went all the way! worst crime areas: those places.

CO said that Dickinpooper is talking about enhancing mental health system and restrictions on private FTF sales so all of them go through an FFL. no mention of anything else. but the bills remain to be submitted or written.

[Ronin13]

So I haven't seen much of anything that's going to hurt us (AWB/Mag cap restrictions) too tremendously- I haven't seen what they've come up with in the past 3 days- introduced on the CO legislature floor yet, and IIRC I remember one our own State Reps on here saying that they have a very short period of time to do anything (100 days or so?)... So if we don't see anything introduced soon it's kind of a given that we're in the clear, right?

[hammer03]

If "soon" means the next 100 days...

[MarkCO]

The savy move is to wait. Don't let up now folks.

[Ronin13]

If "soon" means the next 100 days...
Well you have to factor in, and I don't know the answer, how long does it take for our state, from introduction to passing, to pass legislative measures?

[hammer03]

If NY is any indication (and all accounts seem to agree that CO moves very quickly) you'll have 24-36 hours notice.

[Clint45]

If NY is any indication (and all accounts seem to agree that CO moves very quickly) you'll have 24-36 hours notice.

^ THIS

[Mountain Man]

My guess is they will try to pass exactly what Obama talked about today. We know our Legislators have been in contact with Obama. I am guessing they want to use Colorado as a test case for the national laws. It seems to be happening way to much lately.

Be vigilant and don't get complacent. They are to going to have everything written up and then try to ram it through.

[lowbeyond]

Wasn't NY the test case ? It passed - overwhelmingly

[hammer03]

NY is an example of their "best case scenario" where CO would be a test case for how palatable such tyranny would be to the rest of the country eventually. People in CA/NY/MA/NJ have already given so much, they don't have any way to resist. CO isn't quite a lost cause yet. They want to see just how big that sleeping bear is before they wake it.

[lowbeyond]

that seems reasonable.

hopefully i wont be forced to move...

[mdflem51]

Might be construed to include bad Mexican food ..

[Ghosty]

CO said that Dickinpooper is talking about enhancing mental health system and restrictions on private FTF sales so all of them go through an FFL. no mention of anything else. but the bills remain to be submitted or written.
Let's pray so, but don't let up on your email writings & calls. This is historically a HUGE sportsmans and hunters state, they better realize.


Might be construed to include bad Mexican food ..
Casa Bonita, yes I know you don't go for the food, you go for the kids and fun, but still...
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v231/SpectralCat/Emoticons/vomit-smiley-024.gif

Anyone remember ElCharrito frozen dinners? I use to love that shit.

[Mountain Man]

This is right along with my thoughts on it. For whatever reason Colorado is politically a test bed. They figure whatever they get passed here will fly nationally. Don't let up and do whatever you can to stop it. It was brutal what they did in new York. I have been communicating with one of the politicians from NY that tried hard and fought the good fight. He is regrouping and trying to hit it again to change things and let people see what happened.

I need to find a hard charger in this state and give them some backing before hand.




NY is an example of their "best case scenario" where CO would be a test case for how palatable such tyranny would be to the rest of the country eventually. People in CA/NY/MA/NJ have already given so much, they don't have any way to resist. CO isn't quite a lost cause yet. They want to see just how big that sleeping bear is before they wake it.

[Batts1911]

I currently live in Massachusetts, and will be moving to Colorado in August. I wanted to chime in because Im a strong 2a supporter and your freedoms when it comes to gun laws is one of the things that attracted me to your state. The laws on the books here in are Mass are already crazy, and now Ive read they are pushing NY style legislation here...Needless to say that's unacceptable. This state is an example of what happens when liberal democrats can become entrenched and politicians are basically voted in for life. The mayor of Boston is a bumbling idiot who can barely finish a coherent sentence, yet he basically is Mayor until he retires because of the democratic machine in this state. To offer some perspective, Ive been made to wait 7 months now for my permit to own/carry a firearm. This is after completing my basic safety course which cost about 80 bucks, writing a letter to the chief of my city explaining why I deserve to exercise a right, two letters of recommendation, and a 100 dollar check made out to the city. And If im lucky that will get me a permit to own and conceal carry. Its so bad in this city that a group of us are suing the chief for violating state law with these wait times. Some have waited up to a year for their permits. Many companies like Glock, Kimber, Springfield dont even offer new products to this state because of the drop laws and restrictions. Only pre ban 1998 glocks can be bought. The whole reason I mention all of this is because this is how bad it can get, and apparently its gonna get worse with 7 round mag restrictions(already a 10 round limit in place). I hope your elected officials are a bit more sane than mine, and just look at Massachusetts for example of why none of us can ever relax in the defense of our rights.

[Alf Tanner]

You're not in hardwick are you? My gf is from there and they basically told me to fuck myself when I went to the police station to try to get a FID card for someone out of state and they straight out lied to me saying my NRA pistol course would not suffice to apply even though the website they referred me to listed it as approved

[lowbeyond]

heh. Im from NJ, and when i finally got my FID card - after the cops ignored the NJ statute for 4 months -, and pistol permits (FU NJ !) the cops basically gave me the 3rd degree. What gun are you going to buy ? Why do you need that one? Along with lots of *sighing* and derision, basically telling me to fuck off while they wrote my name in their fukking book

[Batts1911]

You're not in hardwick are you? My gf is from there and they basically told me to fuck myself when I went to the police station to try to get a FID card for someone out of state and they straight out lied to me saying my NRA pistol course would not suffice to apply even though the website they referred me to listed it as approved

Nope Everett. Check this out. See here: http://www.comm2a.org/news/17-news/121-everett

[Clint45]

heh. Im from NJ, and when i finally got my FID card - after the cops ignored the NJ statute for 4 months -, and pistol permits (FU NJ !) the cops basically gave me the 3rd degree. What gun are you going to buy ? Why do you need that one? Along with lots of *sighing* and derision, basically telling me to fuck off while they wrote my name in their fukking book

My stepson works in law enforcement in New York. After his grandfather died, they were cleaning out his house and hound an unregistered Colt from the 1960s, and he decided to officially register it on his pistol permit. They practically accused him of buying it on the black market and threatened to subject him to a criminal investigation, seizing the revolver for "evidence." Luckily, he was friends with the judge who pulled some strings. After they completed their month long "investigation" they decided he was probably telling the truth about finding a 50 year old revolver in his deceased grandfather's belongings and allowed him to register it on his pistol permit.

Also, there have been at least two cases I'm aware of where after filling out a multipage application, making appointments for prints and photos, and submitting them to the court along with your 5 notarized character references and your check, the clerk assigned to process it just ran everything through the shredder. In both cases, after over a year had passed with hundreds of complaints the clerks were not even fired, just transferred.