Highway case?

[Great-Kazoo]

Not to derail this thread but are you saying if I'm a cop I can carry in New York City?

http://www.leaa.org/218/

The internet is your friend, sometimes.

[spqrzilla]

Do you have the CRS for that?

Yep.

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.

From CRS 33-1-102:

(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.

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.

[MarkCO]

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.

[spqrzilla]

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.

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.

It says that possession in a vehicle while traveling is a defense to this charge.

[centrarchidae]

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.

Where does it say that?

[MarkCO]

It says that possession in a vehicle while traveling is a defense to this charge.

No it does not, that would be called an affirmative defense which must be made in court. 18-12-105.2.b says:

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;

Which means a charge would be wrong and no citation should be issued.

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.

[spqrzilla]

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.