HB13-1043 Changing the Definition of 'Deadly Weapon'

[Hound]

I am not seeing this come up on any discussions. It is just as bad for us. HB13-1043 redefined the definition of a 'deadly weapon' here is the link:

http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics2013a/csl.nsf/billcontainers/A1381F329604BCFB87257AEE0057E410/$FILE/1043_01.pdf

From the bill:

"The bill modifies this definition so that a firearm, whether loaded or unloaded, qualifies as a deadly weapon regardless of the manner in which it is used or intended to be used."

What this does is make it so anything you do while in possession of a gun gets 'with a deadly weapon' added on. It does not matter if the gun was in the truck, unloaded, firing pin is missing, pulled out or still held in your waistband. You bump into me..... a cop frisked you, somebody saw a glint of metal, etc, I scream assault..... You are now dealing with a charge of Assault with a deadly weapon. You never pulled out your gun. Never threatened anybody... nothing. See where it states " regardless of the manner intended to be used". You still get 'with a deadly weapon' added where it would have only been assualt. Now expand that out to Road rage, tresspassing, etc. and your C&C just got a lot more dangerous for you to do legally.

RMGO lists this as ready for Hickenloopers signature.

http://www.rmgo.org/political/gun-laws/billwatch?limitstart=0

And nobody seems to be talking on this one. Folks there were 8 bills not just 7 [Mad]

[MarkCO]

Discussed on other threads. We know it is bad too.

[merl]

also note it is disturbing the peace to display a Deadly Weapon.

this one quietly killed open carry in the state.

[Hound]

You would think people would be just as much up-in-arms over this as the others. It attacks us as much. Is anybody complaining to Hick? I have sent emails and called. Everybody on our level that I talk to has never heard of it. At Tanner, the guys in the recall both had never heard of it. They are obviously political. It seems to me if people are not complaining, the Governor has every reason to think we agree when I am sure we don't!

[Epyon]

It's easy for other bills to slip quietly when there is such a wide array of absurd laws already being argued.

[mikedubs]

I think we might have been had. While we were up in arms about 1224 and 1229, this snuck through. Basically, EVERYTHING is a deadly weapon now, and if someone freaks out that your CCW prints at the store then brandishing, menacing, assault, deadly weapon are all coming your way.

FUCK

[ringhilt]

Doesn't matter much. I attended a lecture by a lawyer (pro-gun) about the legalities of self-defense shootings. and in the eyes of the law, anything that can be used to cause bodily harm and/or death will be classified as "a deadly weapon". I used a ball point pen as an example and yes, if I managed to cause bodily harm and or death with a ball point pen, I would be charged with assault with a deadly weapon. Every child in america is going to school with a deadly weapon in their backpacks. Yet I don't hear a clamor for assault pen or assault pencil legislation.
It doesn't have to make sense, it is just the way the law is written. Common sense no longer exist in our legal system. The politicians make it up as they go along and write legislation excessively vague so it can be interpreted to their benefit no matter the situation.

[MarkCO]

Doesn't matter much.

YES IT DOES. I kind of had the same response at first, then I looked at it closer thanks to it being posted on here. BEFORE, the word INTENT was present as a modifier. NOW, there is no intent connected. The posts above yours are accurate and reflect the opinions of the attorneys I have asked about it.

[Kraven251]

And like many of the other laws won't and can't stand up to legal scrutiny.

If I walk down the street with open carry and get busted for Disturbing the Peace, bump into someone and get hit with "Assault with a Deadly Weapon," it will cost me or the organization I get to help me pay for it about $20-30k, but this law would be ruled unconstitutional.

Like the vast majority of these laws, it is vague and wide sweeping. They butt heads with established legal precedents in the state and will die because of that, the first time they are seriously challenged.

[Rooskibar03]

Well eff me sideways. That may be the straw to push me over the edge and out of the hell hole of a state.

[Hound]

Guys,

They got this one through quickly and quietly before the rest of them for a reason. This was the one they knew would give them the most power in the future with the least friction. The rest would draw attention.... This was 'just a definition change', who cares. It does some of the most damage. If we are out with a gun and ANYTHING happens it just got a lot easier to throw the book at us. This then allows them to make you a criminal thus unable to own your gun. Sooo they take the guns away from an individual..... but what if you are a leader, speaking for gun rights, like a Kopel (he would probably be able to defend himself) or a organizer for gun rights. You just became a lot easier target for them to not only take away you 2nd rights but also your 1st. Nobody listens to a criminal. You become a dangerous 'gun nut' crying about losing your guns. While you pay the lawyers to defend you against the BS. You might win, you might even take it to the Supreme Court. In the mean time you have been neutered as a leader while you defend yourself.

This one was targeted. Marco, I think you got it [Beer]

[Kraven251]

or it means the police can just shoot you [panic]

[Irving]

When I was on jury duty, the Judge told us that Assault with a Deadly weapon came with a minimum of 10 years in prison.

[Hound]

or it means the police can just shoot you [Panic]



I don't think this means panic. It does mean we need to add this to the discussion and get it as a main topic when the repel comes. I don't want us to fight against the rest of them and forget this one. Like I said, I am not hearing about this from anybody else and I should. Get the word out. Let Hick know this one is also not acceptable.