Close
Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 76
  1. #51
    Paper Hunter
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    West slope (Montrose)
    Posts
    114

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by spqrzilla View Post
    That's not true. I'm not sure why the "car is legally your home" stuff got started from but its never been true. It is not how you can carry a loaded pistol in your car - there is a specific statute.
    Could you clarify? Almost sounds like you are saying it's not legal to have a loaded handgun in your auto.

  2. #52
    GLOCK HOOKER hurley842002's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Tucson, AZ
    Posts
    8,021

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by D_F View Post
    Could you clarify? Almost sounds like you are saying it's not legal to have a loaded handgun in your auto.
    There is a specific statute that covers loaded pistol in your car, not "the car is your domain" thing that many seem to think.

  3. #53
    Grand Master Know It All newracer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Timnath
    Posts
    4,586

    Default

    He is not saying that at all. He is just disputing the "car is an extension of your home."

  4. #54
    At least my tag is unmolested
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    CANON CITY, CO
    Posts
    3,133

    Default

    hurley and newracer, thanks.
    Sayonara

  5. #55
    Paper Hunter
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    West slope (Montrose)
    Posts
    114

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hurley842002 View Post
    There is a specific statute that covers loaded pistol in your car, not "the car is your domain" thing that many seem to think.
    Any chance you have a quick link? I haven't followed close enough, but it used to be that the prohibition on loaded firearms in an auto was a hunting regulation that specified long guns only. And the car being an extension of home had to do with pemitless concealed carry. I used to have the hunting reg memorized but have fallen out of practice. I need to re-educate myself in any case.
    Last edited by D_F; 03-14-2016 at 13:59.

  6. #56
    MODFATHER cstone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Baltimore, MD
    Posts
    7,472
    Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges.

    My Feedback

  7. #57
    Grand Master Know It All newracer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Timnath
    Posts
    4,586

    Default

    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.

  8. #58
    Machine Gunner
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Conifer
    Posts
    1,473

    Default

    The only crime I see here is driving while under the influence; I would file a report with police because I have zero tolerance for that shit. As far as him smoking weed in public. If he smoked around kids or approached kids in the neighborhood, I would have a problem with that too, which would be the other reason I would file a police report. Otherwise, talking to the home owners about a dispute is usually the first step assuming he is actually violating an ordnance; I would find out what the ordnance is first. If he isn't violating any then you need to find ways of dealing with it. Disputes with neighbors can really suck. I have a coworker friend who still can't get his CCW because of a bogus restraining order put on him by his neighbor.
    I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.
    Thomas Jefferson

    Feedback

  9. #59
    Paper Hunter
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    West slope (Montrose)
    Posts
    114

    Default

    Thank you.

    That covers concealed. And 33-6-125 covers the loaded question.

  10. #60
    Varmiteer
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Thornton
    Posts
    524

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by XC700116 View Post
    You're missing the most important part of that conservative principle, freedom comes with responsibility, and the responsibility here is NOT putting others in danger by exercising that freedom while driving and thereby putting uninvolved innocents in danger.

    I have no problems with people smoking some or honestly doing any drugs they choose, as long as they deal with the responsibilities of those actions, not driving, any health issues that arise due to their uses, financial issues, etc.

    Your freedom to be you includes my freedom to be free from you and the repercussions of your choices. When you decide your freedom Trump's mine, we have a problem, and I'll act to balance the scales.
    I'm not missing any points. The OP is mostly upset that he can smell MJ. It also bothers him that neighborhood kids can also smell the MJ. He added the complaint that they sometimes drive off. We have no proof that the driver of that vehicle is in fact under the influence. 1. We don't know if the driver smoked MJ, a cig, a cigar, menthol plants, etc. or anything at all. 2. IF the driver consumed MJ it takes several minutes to a ½ for the effects to start. It's possible the driver hasn't begin to feel the effects before they leave and end at what ever location they're going to. IF the driver consumed MJ, did they consume enough to be legally charged with a DUI? Many folks can drink a beer or two and still be well within the legal driving limits. The real point here is the OP does not like the smell of MJ and he's upset that he has no real control over it. Many of us would feel the same way about this or other similar issues with neighbors. My neighbors just bought his and hers Harleys. My wife isn't too excited because they are noisy. She has to get up very early including weekends and she fears the exhaust noise at the wee hours during the weekends will wake her. Guess what? Not much she can do about it. Yet, she may be affected. You have rights, you don't have the right to not be offended and that's what this thread is really about. The 'safety' issue is just to prop his argument. "what about the kids!".

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •