Printable View
Does colorado have laws that state if your traveling on the highway that you have to have your rifle in a hard case? I know in some states you have to have a certain kind of case for transport. This is in state, not across state lines. I have a hard case to goto the range but I'm getting another rifle and was looking at a soft range case for it. Thanks.
No. Only concern is making sure the rifle or shotgun is not Loaded / chambered. They you fall afoul of DOW laws.
Yup, your car is your castle (an extension anyway). I'm sure if the DOW nabbed you they could pin all kinds of charges on, .223 is under legal caliber, no license= poaching, etc.
The law that states that a long gun in a vehicle must be unloaded (with respect to chamber) is a law that exists for enforcement against poachers. But it is a general law, and can be enforced by any LEO, not just the Division of Wildlife (Parks now ...).
Ok so hard or soft case is irrelevant as long as its unloaded. What about having loaded mags in the case?
thats fine loaded mags in the rifle is fine.....just no bullet in the chamberQuote:
Originally Posted by Spdu4ia
You can basically have it in any configuration... it can be sitting across your lap if you really want, but it cannot have a round chambered.
I was under the impression that law was also intended to help prevent accidental shootings, since yanking loaded rifles/shotguns out of vehicles has resulted in people getting shot in the past. My wife had a friend that lost a son that way.
Ok so hard or soft case and no bullet chambered....got it. Thanks guys
Pretty much- you don't need a case, but prying eyes... I'd suggest putting all rifles/shotguns in a case of some sort and when parked and not occupying the car, cover the cases just in case. Wow... that's a lot of case written in there... [Coffee]Quote:
Originally Posted by Spdu4ia
And I'm sure there is some applicable case law regarding this topic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin13
[Coffee]
Oh i always have it in a case in the car just didn't know since I'm buying another one if I should get another hard case or I'd soft was ok.
Not to hijack this thread but I have a couple that always come up during pheasant season that I'm not 100% sure on.
1 - O/U open but shells in the chamber... My thought is this is illegal but a bit of a grey area since we've had wardens look at my friends shotgun and not say anything.
2 - auto with shell cutoff, bolt locked open and empty chamber but shells in the mag. I think this is legal but the same wardens didn't mention anything.
I would have asked them but I didn't want to get my friend a ticket if he wasn't legal at the moment.
Just don't have a rifle or shotgun with one in the chamber and you are fine
You got a nice warden. First is a no-no, second is within the law but not a very good idea. Seen more than one shotgun mysteriously load themselves under those conditions.Quote:
Originally Posted by th3w01f
#1 - I'd have to call that illegal, shells in the chamber. Whether the action was closed or not. But, I'm not the Game Warden.Quote:
Originally Posted by th3w01f
#2 - Legal. My dad's old Browning Auto 5 had a cutoff lever that kept shells from feeding. You could close that lever and lock the bolt open, yet flip that lever and she'd load up a round right now.
Do you have the CRS for that?Quote:
Originally Posted by spqrzilla
From the CO State Patrol Website:
Colorado allows a person to carry a firearm in a vehicle, loaded or unloaded, if its use is for lawful protection of such person or another's person or property. [C.R.S. 18-12-105(2)] Colorado law also allows a person to possess a handgun in a dwelling, place of business, or automobile. However, you cannot carry the weapon concealed on or about your person while transporting it into your home, business, hotel room, etc. Local jurisdictions may not enact laws that restrict a person's ability to travel with a weapon. [C.R.S. 18-12-105.6] The Act permits the nationwide carrying of concealed handguns by qualified current and retired law enforcement officers and amends the Gun Control Act of 1968 (Pub. L. 90-618, 82 Stat. 1213) to exempt qualified current and retired law enforcement officers from state and local laws prohibiting the carry of concealed firearms.
Not to derail this thread but are you saying if I'm a cop I can carry in New York City?Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkCO
I say nothing, I only go find the laws and support for such... My Uncle is retired LAPD. He keeps his quals current and carries in NYC.Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperiorDG
http://www.leaa.org/218/Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperiorDG
The internet is your friend, sometimes.
Yep.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkCO
From CRS 33-1-102:Quote:
33-6-125. Possession of a loaded firearm in a motor vehicle
It is unlawful for any person, except a person authorized by law or by the division, to possess or have under his control any firearm, other than a pistol or revolver, in or on any motor vehicle unless the chamber of such firearm is unloaded. Any person in possession or in control of a rifle or shotgun in a motor vehicle shall allow any peace officer, as defined in section 33-1-102 (32), who is empowered and acting under the authority granted in section 33-6-101 to enforce articles 1 to 6 of this title to inspect the chamber of any rifle or shotgun in the motor vehicle. For the purposes of this section, a "muzzle-loader" shall be considered unloaded if it is not primed, and, for such purpose, "primed" means having a percussion cap on the nipple or flint in the striker and powder in the flash pan. Any person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine of fifty dollars and an assessment of fifteen license suspension points.
The state patrol page you quoted is really not correct on what 18-12-105 criminalizes and permits. In 18-12-105, it is a defense to the crime of having a concealed weapon on your person that the weapon is being carried for the purposes of personal protection while traveling. CRS 18-12-105(2)'s exception does not override CRS 33-6-125's prohibition.Quote:
(32) "Peace officer" means a sheriff, undersheriff, deputy sheriff, police officer, Colorado state patrol officer, or town marshal; a district attorney, assistant district attorney, deputy district attorney, or special deputy district attorney; an authorized investigator of a district attorney; an agent of the Colorado bureau of investigation; a Colorado wildlife officer or special wildlife officer; or a parks and recreation officer.
Nope, Fail.
Section 33 is Parks and Wildlife and specifrically applies while hunting. Even the definition of "Peace officer" is just granting all of those classes the right to enforece game laws. In order for any charges under Section 33 to apply, the accused must have been hunting or engaged in poaching or other damage to those resources under the control of Parks and Wildlife. Section 18 deals with general firearms laws.
Based on your last sentence, you have now determined which Section has precedence due to a "preceived" conflict within the CRS. You should probably tell the CO State Patrol they are providing people with incorrect information as well.
Nope, first of all, 18-12-105(2) does not state that you can carry a loaded firearm in a vehicle as the State Patrol writes.It says that possession in a vehicle while traveling is a defense to this charge.Quote:
18-12-105. Unlawfully carrying a concealed weapon - unlawful possession of weapons
(1) A person commits a class 2 misdemeanor if such person knowingly and unlawfully:
(a) Carries a knife concealed on or about his or her person; or
(b) Carries a firearm concealed on or about his or her person; or
(c) Without legal authority, carries, brings, or has in such person's possession a firearm or any explosive, incendiary, or other dangerous device on the property of or within any building in which the chambers, galleries, or offices of the general assembly, or either house thereof, are located, or in which a legislative hearing or meeting is being or is to be conducted, or in which the official office of any member, officer, or employee of the general assembly is located.
(d) (Deleted by amendment, L. 93, p. 964, § 1, effective July 1, 1993.)
(2) It shall not be an offense if the defendant was:
(a) A person 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 act of carrying; or
(b) A person in a private automobile or other private means of conveyance who carries a weapon for lawful protection of such person's or another's person or property while traveling; or
(c) A person who, at the time of carrying a concealed weapon, held a valid written permit to carry a concealed weapon issued pursuant to section 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 this article; except that it shall be an offense under this section if the person was carrying a concealed handgun in violation of the provisions of section 18-12-214; or
(d) 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
(e) (Deleted by amendment, L. 2003, p. 1624, § 46, effective August 6, 2003.)
(f) 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.
Where does it say that?Quote:
Section 33 is Parks and Wildlife and specifrically applies while hunting. Even the definition of "Peace officer" is just granting all of those classes the right to enforece game laws. In order for any charges under Section 33 to apply, the accused must have been hunting or engaged in poaching or other damage to those resources under the control of Parks and Wildlife.
No it does not, that would be called an affirmative defense which must be made in court. 18-12-105.2.b says:Quote:
It says that possession in a vehicle while traveling is a defense to this charge.
Which means a charge would be wrong and no citation should be issued.Quote:
It shall not be an offense if the defendant was:
(b) A person in a private automobile or other private means of conveyance who carries a weapon for lawful protection of such person's or another's person or property while traveling;
Just spent an hour of the phone with the best man in my wedding who happens to be a Cheif of Police in Colorado, in a Jurisdiction with a LOT of hunintg. Prior to that, 40 minutes with a friend who was a JeffCO prosecutor.
Title 18 is the criminal, that is what they are taught to use and what takes precedence over title 33 for any charges. Title 33 is under the Parks and specifcally applies to Hunting so if a person was not able to proven hunting or intent on illegally hunting, there is no basis for any charges under Title 33. I was read to out of the Gray book several explanations.
Wow, never though the written word could be so misinterpreted, guess you all have proven why we need so many lawyers.
The language of 105(2) is limiting only to 18-12-105, not to other statutes.
Title 33 is organized as to hunting related ordinances, and many of its offenses include hunting as an element but the statutory language of 33-6-125 does not restrict its application as you describe. I'd enjoy seeing any statutory or caselaw reference to your claim that "for any charges under Section 33 to apply, the accused must have been hunting or engaged in poaching or other damage to those resources under the control of Parks and Wildlife" as the statutory language contains no such limitation. The Division's chief of enforcement specifically lectures hunter education instructors that the offense applies at all times.