HB 1224 vs Denver AWB

[lowbeyond]

Does anyone know what the deal is with these two ?

I know that Denver won their case 2-2 over a home rule exemption (talk about a technicality - heh) so they could restrict mags to 20 rounds.

But now with HB 1224, the limit is 15. So... which wins 15 or 20 ?

My guess is the 15 rnd limit applies but, if the state cannot overrule Denver on its awb do to "home rule", then how can the state impose a 15 round limit in Denver city/county ?

[MED]

Does anyone know what the deal is with these two ?

I know that Denver won their case 2-2 over a home rule exemption (talk about a technicality - heh) so they could restrict mags to 20 rounds.

But now with HB 1224, the limit is 15. So... which wins 15 or 20 ?

My guess is the 15 rnd limit applies but, if the state cannot overrule Denver on its awb do to "home rule", then how can the state impose a 15 round limit in Denver city/county ?

You will likely see Denver modify their ordinance to 10 or 15. I am guessing 10 since they are a bunch of assholes.

[lowbeyond]

heh. probably.

but i wonder what political subdivisions in CO could due under the home rule precedent to foul up 1224 and other bills...

[Zundfolge]

So, if Denver can write its own AWB rule and limit magazines how it sees fit, can some city like say Colorado Springs write a law saying you can own full capacity magazines? Could city and county governments nullify the magazine ban under Home Rule?

[OneGuy67]

As a smaller governmental entity than the state, they can be more restrictive than state law, but not less restrictive.

[Circuits]

As a smaller governmental entity than the state, they can be more restrictive than state law, but not less restrictive.

No, they can be less restrictive - just the tighter of overlapping restrictions applies where the two are both in effect. Denver completely removing their AW ban would not overturn the state ban within Denver liimits. Denver tightening theirs more than the state will create a fresh challenge for a CO supreme court revisit, so they won't do that, either.

[OneGuy67]

I'm going to disagree with you, my friend. As an example, in a relatively similar fashion, as MJ is legal in the state now, local governments can enact laws to restrict it in their jurisdictions. Thus, be more restrictive.

[Ronin13]

I'm going to disagree with you, my friend. As an example, in a relatively similar fashion, as MJ is legal in the state now, local governments can enact laws to restrict it in their jurisdictions. Thus, be more restrictive.
To expand on this idea- currently some municipalities/counties are allowed to restrict the sale (via dispensary) of MMJ. They still, after 64 is fully regulated and integrated, will be allowed to have an outright ban of commercial sale. So... in closing, OneGuy is correct.

[sniper7]

What if two swallows gripped it by the husk and carried it together?

[Circuits]

I'm going to disagree with you, my friend. As an example, in a relatively similar fashion, as MJ is legal in the state now, local governments can enact laws to restrict it in their jurisdictions. Thus, be more restrictive.

It's OK to disagree with me, I just think you're wrong here, as you think I'm wrong. We may yet get to find out which of us is right - if Denver goes further retarded!

[spqrzilla]

The 15 round limit would override Denver's ordinance in this case, as the state statute preempts.

[OneGuy67]

It's OK to disagree with me, I just think you're wrong here, as you think I'm wrong. We may yet get to find out which of us is right - if Denver goes further retarded!

Let us hope not, but to further the discussion, if Denver decided to enact a ban to 10 rounds, wouldn't that be more restrictive than state law? While Spqrzilla is correct that state statute preempts, county and municipal ordinance can be more restrictive than state statute.

[TFOGGER]

I think the gist is this: A City ordinance can be either more or less restrictive than the state statute, but in the case of being less restrictive, the state statute would prevail. Nothing in current law would prevent Denver from making their ordinance more restrictive than the state law, but if they don't, then the state law would apply in any case.

[OneGuy67]

You've got it right on the nose, TFogger!

[asmo]

§ 29-11.7-101. Legislative declaration

(2) Based on the findings specified in subsection (1) of this section, the general assembly concludes that:
(a) The regulation of firearms is a matter of statewide concern;
(b) It is necessary to provide statewide laws concerning the possession and ownership of a firearm to ensure that law-abiding persons are not unfairly placed in the position of unknowingly committing crimes involving firearms.


§ 18-12-105.6. Limitation on local ordinances regarding firearms in private vehicles

(2)
(a) Based on the findings specified in subsection (1) of this section, the general assembly concludes that the carrying of weapons in private automobiles or other private means of conveyance for hunting or for lawful protection of a person's or another's person or property while traveling into, through, or within, a municipal, county, or city and county jurisdiction, regardless of the number of times the person stops in a jurisdiction, is a matter of statewide concern and is not an offense.
(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no municipality, county, or city and county shall have the authority to enact or enforce any ordinance or resolution that would restrict a person's ability to travel with a weapon in a private automobile or other private means of conveyance for hunting or for lawful protection of a person's or another's person or property while traveling into, through, or within, a municipal, county, or city and county jurisdiction, regardless of the number of times the person stops in a jurisdiction.


§ 29-11.7-104. Regulation--carrying--posting

A local government may enact an ordinance, regulation, or other law that prohibits the open carrying of a firearm in a building or specific area within the local government's jurisdiction. If a local government enacts an ordinance, regulation, or other law that prohibits the open carrying of a firearm in a building or specific area, the local government shall post signs at the public entrances to the building or specific area informing persons that the open carrying of firearms is prohibited in the building or specific area.

(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no municipality, county, or city and county shall have the authority to enact or enforce any ordinance or resolution that would restrict a person's ability to travel with a weapon in a private automobile or other private means of conveyance for hunting or for lawful protection of a person's or another's person or property while traveling into, through, or within, a municipal, county, or city and county jurisdiction, regardless of the number of times the person stops in a jurisdiction.

[Circuits]

Let us hope not, but to further the discussion, if Denver decided to enact a ban to 10 rounds, wouldn't that be more restrictive than state law? While Spqrzilla is correct that state statute preempts, county and municipal ordinance can be more restrictive than state statute.

In which case they would run newly afoul of the 2003 state pre-emption law, subject to a new lawsuit by either the state or an interested party. While Denver's ban remains the same, they get to keep their deadlock COSC/affirmative lower court ruling. A new change to either the state pre-emption law, or to Denver's statute would make the issue ripe for a revisit.

TFogger: The state pre-emption law actually does prevent localities from being more restrictive than the state as regards firearms. Denver won an issue-specific ruling on their home-rule AW ban, not a general exemption.

My $0.02 at least.

[spittoon]

Welcome to we are f@#Ked

[Kraven251]

Welcome to we are f@#Ked

nah, Welcome to Denver will turn into a big shit hole, it has been sliding that direction they are just ensuring it will get worse, as well as my continued avoidance of Denver proper as a whole. Though Denver Bullets will still get my business most the rest of Denver can piss right off.

[rockhound]

Welcome to we are f@#Ked

You are fu....

i have not seen this discussed, i will admit that i have not read every post on the subject, but the misdemeanor part of this ban seems to have everyone thinking that it is innocuous

There are several types of misdemeanor charges that will cause you to fail a background check. Domestic violence for example... I am not positive about Colorado, but my father was LEO for 40 years in AZ. A second degree misdemeanor weapons charge will get you on the no gun side of the law.

This little 2nd degree misdemeanor is as insidious as it gets. I am almost 100 positive that it will cause you to lose your gun rights just as effectively as a felony.

[lowbeyond]

The 15 round limit would override Denver's ordinance in this case, as the state statute preempts.

So does that mean that > 20 rnd mags are now legal in denver if they were bought pre July 1 ?

*shrug* i donno. But it does seem odd that with conflicting statutes that there can be a one from column A and one from column B type deal.

[OneGuy67]

In which case they would run newly afoul of the 2003 state pre-emption law, subject to a new lawsuit by either the state or an interested party. While Denver's ban remains the same, they get to keep their deadlock COSC/affirmative lower court ruling. A new change to either the state pre-emption law, or to Denver's statute would make the issue ripe for a revisit.

TFogger: The state pre-emption law actually does prevent localities from being more restrictive than the state as regards firearms. Denver won an issue-specific ruling on their home-rule AW ban, not a general exemption.

My $0.02 at least.
Not just Denver. Vail also has the same 20 round restriction on their books. I don't know if they enforce it as vigorously though (as if Denver enforces it vigorously at all).

[OneGuy67]

You are fu....

i have not seen this discussed, i will admit that i have not read every post on the subject, but the misdemeanor part of this ban seems to have everyone thinking that it is innocuous

There are several types of misdemeanor charges that will cause you to fail a background check. Domestic violence for example... I am not positive about Colorado, but my father was LEO for 40 years in AZ. A second degree misdemeanor weapons charge will get you on the no gun side of the law.

This little 2nd degree misdemeanor is as insidious as it gets. I am almost 100 positive that it will cause you to lose your gun rights just as effectively as a felony.

No, it won't. The feds are very specific in federal statute as to who a prohibited person is. The state statute mirrors that. You can thank the Lautenberg Act for the misdemeanor DV addition to the prohibited persons list. HB-1229, the BGC pending bill does have language that a violation of that (upcoming) statute will cause a firearm prohibition for 2 years, beginning on the date of conviction. None of the other bills have that language in it, although the Protection Order bill has some very tough language and requirements set up in it regarding the forced removal/storage/sale of firearms.

[Circuits]

No, it won't. The feds are very specific in federal statute as to who a prohibited person is.

18 U.S.C. § 922 (g) It shall be unlawful for any person -
(1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;

Doesn't matter if a state classifies the crime as a misdemeanor, just what the maximum penalty is.

[lowbeyond]

18 U.S.C. § 922 (g) It shall be unlawful for any person -
(1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;

Doesn't matter if a state classifies the crime as a misdemeanor, just what the maximum penalty is.

Yep. Give your friend a mag. no guns for you. lol

both bills 1224 and 1229 have as penalties Class 1 or Class 2 misdemeanors. Both have max sentences 1 year or greater.

from http://www.harringtonbrewsterclein.com/CriminalDefense/misdemeanors_and_felonies.html

Class 1 Misdemeanor: 6-18 months in the county jail and/or a $500-$5,000 fine.
Class 2 Misdemeanor: 3-12 months in the county jail and/or a $250-$1,000 fine.

This is also interesting.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-06-13/innocent-incarcerated-prisoners/55585176/1

[BlasterBob]

18 U.S.C. § 922 (g) It shall be unlawful for any person -
(1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;

The wording is kinda amusing - ANY court? How about a "kangaroo court"? [LOL]

[OneGuy67]

TITLE 18. CRIMINAL CODE
ARTICLE 12. OFFENSES RELATING TO FIREARMS AND WEAPONS
PART 1. FIREARMS AND WEAPONS - GENERAL

C.R.S. 18-12-108 (2012)

18-12-108. Possession of weapons by previous offenders

(1) A person commits the crime of possession of a weapon by a previous offender if the person knowingly possesses, uses, or carries upon his or her person a firearm as described in section 18-1-901 (3) (h) or any other weapon that is subject to the provisions of this article subsequent to the person's conviction for a felony, or subsequent to the person's conviction for attempt or conspiracy to commit a felony, under Colorado or any other state's law or under federal law.

(2) (a) Except as otherwise provided by paragraphs (b) and (c) of this subsection (2), a person commits a class 6 felony if the person violates subsection (1) of this section.

(b) A person commits a class 5 felony, as provided by section 18-12-102, if the person violates subsection (1) of this section and the weapon is a dangerous weapon, as defined in section 18-12-102 (1).

(c) A person commits a class 5 felony if the person violates subsection (1) of this section and the person's previous conviction was for burglary, arson, or any felony involving the use of force or the use of a deadly weapon and the violation of subsection (1) of this section occurs as follows:

(I) From the date of conviction to ten years after the date of conviction, if the person was not incarcerated; or

(II) From the date of conviction to ten years after the date of release from confinement, if such person was incarcerated or, if subject to supervision imposed as a result of conviction, ten years after the date of release from supervision.

(d) Any sentence imposed pursuant to this subsection (2) shall run consecutively with any prior sentences being served by the offender.

(3) A person commits the crime of possession of a weapon by a previous offender if the person knowingly possesses, uses, or carries upon his or her person a firearm as described in section 18-1-901 (3) (h) or any other weapon that is subject to the provisions of this article subsequent to the person's adjudication for an act which, if committed by an adult, would constitute a felony, or subsequent to the person's adjudication for attempt or conspiracy to commit a felony, under Colorado or any other state's law or under federal law.

(4) (a) Except as otherwise provided by paragraphs (b) and (c) of this subsection (4), a person commits a class 6 felony if the person violates subsection (3) of this section.

(b) A person commits a class 5 felony, as provided by section 18-12-102, if the person violates subsection (3) of this section and the weapon is a dangerous weapon, as defined in section 18-12-102 (1).

(c) A person commits a class 5 felony if the person commits the conduct described in subsection (3) of this section and the person's previous adjudication was based on an act that, if committed by an adult, would constitute burglary, arson, or any felony involving the use of force or the use of a deadly weapon and the violation of subsection (3) of this section occurs as follows:

(I) From the date of adjudication to ten years after the date of adjudication, if the person was not committed to the department of institutions, or on or after July 1, 1994, to the department of human services; or

(II) From the date of adjudication to ten years after the date of release from commitment, if such person was committed to the department of institutions, or on or after July 1, 1994, to the department of human services or, if subject to supervision imposed as a result of an adjudication, ten years after the date of release from supervision.

(d) Any sentence imposed pursuant to this subsection (4) shall run consecutively with any prior sentences being served by the offender.

(5) A second or subsequent offense under paragraphs (b) and (c) of subsection (2) and paragraphs (b) and (c) of subsection (4) of this section is a class 4 felony.

(6) (a) Upon the discharge of any inmate from the custody of the department of corrections, the department shall provide a written advisement to such inmate of the prohibited acts and penalties specified in this section. The written advisement, at a minimum, shall include the written statement specified in paragraph (c) of this subsection (6).

(b) Any written stipulation for deferred judgment and sentence entered into by a defendant pursuant to section 18-1.3-102 shall contain a written advisement of the prohibited acts and penalties specified in this section. The written advisement, at a minimum, shall include the written statement specified in paragraph (c) of this subsection (6).

(c) The written statement shall provide that:

(I) (A) A person commits the crime of possession of a weapon by a previous offender in violation of this section if the person knowingly possesses, uses, or carries upon his or her person a firearm as described in section 18-1-901 (3) (h), or any other weapon that is subject to the provisions of this title subsequent to the person's conviction for a felony, or subsequent to the person's conviction for attempt or conspiracy to commit a felony, or subsequent to the person's conviction for a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence as defined in 18 U.S.C. sec. 921 (a) (33) (A), or subsequent to the person's conviction for attempt or conspiracy to commit such misdemeanor crime of domestic violence; and

(B) For the purposes of this paragraph (c), "felony" means any felony under Colorado law, federal law, or the laws of any other state; and

(II) A violation of this section may result in a sentence of imprisonment or fine, or both.

(d) The act of providing the written advisement described in this subsection (6) or the failure to provide such advisement may not be used as a defense to any crime charged and may not provide any basis for collateral attack on, or for appellate relief concerning, any conviction.


This is Colorado state statute regarding prohibited persons from possessing a firearm. In reading 18 U.S.C. § 921, which contain the definitions for the subsequent federal statutes that follow to include 18 U.S.C. § 922 (g), which you reference, one finds the definition you are referring to:

(20) The term "crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year" does not include -

(A) any Federal or State offenses pertaining to antitrust violations, unfair trade practices, restraints of trade, or other similar offenses relating to the regulation of business practices, or

(B) any State offense classified by the laws of the State as a misdemeanor and punishable by a term of imprisonment of two years or less.

[J]

I figure the outcome of still being more screwed in Denver will be the lack of grandfather clause.

In Colorado, you can't have any new magazines over 15 rounds, or transfer them. This includes Denver.
In Colorado, you can have a grandfathered magazine of unlimited capacity, except for in Denver where there is a hard limit set to 20 with no real grandfather clause.

So in Denver, your grandfathered magazines need to be under 21 rounds, but you still can't have any new magazines over 15 rounds or participate in any transfers of a magazine if over 15 rounds.

[Circuits]

TITLE 18. CRIMINAL CODE
(20) The term "crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year" does not include -
(B) any State offense classified by the laws of the State as a misdemeanor and punishable by a term of imprisonment of two years or less.

Ah. Good catch there, OneGuy67. Gotta be over TWO years if state classifies it as a misdemeanor.

[OneGuy67]

Like I said, Circuits, I'm not trying to argue with you. Just a friendly conversation!

[IFFV]

Some of your smaller Towns in Colorado only have a couple of officers on duty.
I know of one that only has an Officer on duty in the Summer to write Speeding tickets on the weekends.
I would think most of the smaller mountain tows who hate the Governor will not enforce most of the New Laws.

[IFFV]

One other point to bring up,
Correct me if I'm wrong here.
If you get two misdemeanors, the third one is a Felony & you will not be able to have a Firearm?
They can come thru around the back way to get your Firearm??
Tell me I'm wrong?

[OneGuy67]

One other point to bring up,
Correct me if I'm wrong here.
If you get two misdemeanors, the third one is a Felony & you will not be able to have a Firearm?
They can come thru around the back way to get your Firearm??
Tell me I'm wrong?

What are you trying to ask here?