Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Fallout from Colorado's New Transfer Laws

  1. #1
    Founder's Club Member protias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    SE, WI
    Posts
    7,322

    Fallout from Colorado's New Transfer Laws

    This is stupid. Gun confiscation by default basically. If your in Colorado you are now going to have to be A LOT more cautious as far as accidents driving etc...

    All because police have no FFL on staff to conduct a firearm background check. IMO this was intentional wording to lead to catch 22.

    The last time Sara Warren saw her personal handgun was in the ambulance after an accident on March 28. The police have refused to give the firearm back to her.

    The Loveland resident was taken to the Poudre Valley Hospital where her personal firearm was turned over to Fort Collins Police Services where it's been ever since.

    Due to advice from the city attorney's office based on the Colorado gun transfer laws that went into effect July 1, 2013, the police have been unable to return her property.
    No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. Thomas Jefferson (1776)

    If you go into a store, with a gun, and rob it, you have forfeited your right to not get shot - Joe Deters, Hamilton County (Cincinnati) Prosecutor

    I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians. - George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Gotta a link to the law?

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,154
    LOL No "gun buy-backs" in Fort Collins. ""We had an opinion from our city attorney and district attorney not to return firearms without a (Federal Firearms License) check, and we don't have an FFL person in our office," said Fort Collins deputy chief Jim Szakmeister. "
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    398
    IIRC Firearms laws in CO are under 18.12.1XX, and this inner in particular is 18.12.112. (At work and can't double-check right now.)

    What is interesting is that under this law temporary transfers are legal as long as the "owner" remains present (one of the few times this stupid law mentions the owner rather than focusing on the transferor, transferee, and possession). So technically the officer can transfer to the owner because said owner is present, and the owner can then walk away with it because the owner is then remaining with the firearm which is the required condition for continuing the loan. The temporary transfer them becomes permanent though because the law implies that the return transfer must be to the owner, and the firearm is now in possession of the owner so that condition is met... At least that is my interpretation of how you can legally work around this ridiculously stupid law.

    Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk
    Last edited by arentol; 05-09-2014 at 12:29 PM.

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by protias View Post
    This is stupid. Gun confiscation by default basically. If your in Colorado you are now going to have to be A LOT more cautious as far as accidents driving etc...

    All because police have no FFL on staff to conduct a firearm background check. IMO this was intentional wording to lead to catch 22.
    If a law requires seizure of property without due process, that law is unconstitutional.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Superlite27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    God's Country, Missouri
    Posts
    1,279
    I would go to the front desk and file a police report for stolen property containing the the firearm's information.

    I would document that I was in possession of my firearm when I entered the ambulance, and due to incapacitation, was not aware of its removal from my person.

    Not having given my permission for any change in possession, the described firearm would technically meet the definition of "stolen". If it is determined that it was not stolen, I would demand charges be filed as if it is not "stolen", it would meet the criteria for a transfer.

    As the department has no FFL, they would be breaking the law if they transferred it without one, correct?

    Either the firearm is considered stolen, therefore charges should be filed upon the person(s) who dispossessed you, or if it is not considered stolen, it would have to be transferred (involuntarily) therefore, charges should be filed for an unlawful transfer.

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Due to advice from the city attorney's office based on the Colorado gun transfer laws that went into effect July 1, 2013, the police have been unable to return her property.
    Right. Because this guy is the one prosecutor in America who can't bring himself to use "prosecutorial discretion" to avoid prosecuting police for the laws they routinely violate the letter of (and which provide no explicit exemption) in the course of collecting evidence, making arrests, etc.

    For instance, how many drug laws exempt the police? By this CA's "logic" he should really be prosecuting the entire department for possession.

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Superlite27 View Post
    As the department has no FFL, they would be breaking the law if they transferred it without one, correct?
    When conducting their official duties, the police are exempted from all such restrictions. When someone else moves a firearm, such as one left in public, to a place of greater security before turning it over to the police, they too are exempted.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Northglenn, Colorado
    Posts
    243
    Its hogwash at any rate. She is the owner of the firearm, she never gave up ownership.

    And this is pretty much how it should be handled to invalidate the stupid law:

    Superlite27


    I would go to the front desk and file a police report for stolen property containing the the firearm's information.

    I would document that I was in possession of my firearm when I entered the ambulance, and due to incapacitation, was not aware of its removal from my person.

    Not having given my permission for any change in possession, the described firearm would technically meet the definition of "stolen". If it is determined that it was not stolen, I would demand charges be filed as if it is not "stolen", it would meet the criteria for a transfer.

    As the department has no FFL, they would be breaking the law if they transferred it without one, correct?

    Either the firearm is considered stolen, therefore charges should be filed upon the person(s) who dispossessed you, or if it is not considered stolen, it would have to be transferred (involuntarily) therefore, charges should be filed for an unlawful transfer.

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Have a friendly ffl go with her to do the transfer for both the police and her.

    Certainly one ffl in the state has some gumption yes?

    Or sue for the $$$ of the gun.

  11. #11
    Regular Member eBratt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Fort Collins Area, CO
    Posts
    271
    If I was an FFL, I'd do it in a heartbeat. Anyone know an FFL in the area?


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
    "The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good" - George Washington
    "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." - Mahatma Gandhi

    As always, insert standard IANAL disclaimer here.

  12. #12
    Regular Member MatieA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Egbert, Wyoming, USA
    Posts
    403
    My take on this is that they are illegally in possession of her handgun because there was no background check ran when the LEO too possession of the handgun. I may very well be wrong but I do not remember reading an exception for an LEO to take possession of a firearm without a background check. A transfer is a transfer.
    If you do not test yourself every single day,
    then it is just another wasted day.
    --Semper Fi--

  13. #13
    Regular Member tomrkba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    128
    Michael Bane talks about this on his Downrange Radio podcast. He worked with his attorney prior to the show. The gist of it is that the law is designed to entrap law abiding gun owners. The casual transport of firearms is no longer possible in Colorado. For example, if they find an AR-15 with standard capacity magazines, they will arrest the person and confiscate it--despite it being completely legal. The way the law was written means possession is a crime. The person will have to go to court and hire an attorney just to get it dismissed. Jurisdictions such as Denver will not return the gun since it was "used in a crime".
    Last edited by tomrkba; 05-24-2014 at 10:31 PM.

Posting Permissions

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