Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 34

Thread: Possession of unloaded gun in parked car while intoxicated in Colorado

  1. #1
    Newbie
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Douglas County
    Posts
    1

    Possession of unloaded gun in parked car while intoxicated in Colorado

    What should someone expect from a summons for Prohibited Use of Weapons in Colorado. The gun was unloaded but the person was intoxicated and sitting in a car parked at his home. Also, the gun was not concealed.

  2. #2
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,876
    welcome...I am not an attorney, but you might seek one out to protect their rights.

    additionally, you might cease divulging any further information on this subject on a public forum.

    btw, did i say welcome?

    ipse
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Jefferson County, CO
    Posts
    260
    Quote Originally Posted by Colorado girl View Post
    What should someone expect from a summons for Prohibited Use of Weapons in Colorado. The gun was unloaded but the person was intoxicated and sitting in a car parked at his home. Also, the gun was not concealed.
    Quote Originally Posted by solus View Post
    welcome...I am not an attorney, but you might seek one out to protect their rights.

    additionally, you might cease divulging any further information on this subject on a public forum.

    I have to agree with ipse on both points. What to expect should ONLY be answered by an attorney, and one directly involved in the case, at that. Since the law anywhere deals with the totality of the circumstances (expect to hear that phrase a lot), only somebody with true access to all the details, courtroom rules, procedures, case law, precedents, etc. should ever be in a position to answer this question.

    I'm a resident and native of Colorado, and I can follow the law quite well, but I'm no attorney and wouldn't be able to begin to answer your questions. Even attorneys on this board should steer clear of doing so unless they were involved in this specific case (and even then, they wouldn't answer them on a forum, much less publicly).

  4. #4
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,613
    State specific query - moving it to the Colorado sub-forum.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  5. #5
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    TITLE 18. CRIMINAL CODE
    ARTICLE 12. OFFENSES RELATING TO FIREARMS AND WEAPONS
    PART 1. FIREARMS AND WEAPONS - GENERAL

    18-12-106. Prohibited use of weapons

    (1) A person commits a class 2 misdemeanor if:

    (d) The person has in his or her possession a firearm while the person is under the influence of intoxicating liquor or of a controlled substance, as defined in section 18-18-102 (5).

    ANNOTATION - Self-defense is not a valid defense to the crime of prohibited use of weapons. People v. Beckett, 782 P.2d 812 (Colo. App. 1989), aff'd, 800 P.2d 74 (Colo. 1990).


    http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/...R.S.+18-12-106
    There is a problem here and it needs to be corrected.

    A citizen can be prosecuted if he is intoxicated, in his own home, and uses a firearm to defend himself. What difference is it if he is in a vehicle on his own property.

    Very bad.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  6. #6
    Regular Member rushcreek2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs. CO
    Posts
    924
    Aside from the cited CRS ...where is the CRIME....?

    In the absence of some collateral offense...Plead Not Guilty...and hold out for a dismissal.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Brighton
    Posts
    73

    ..

    Quote Originally Posted by Colorado girl View Post
    What should someone expect from a summons for Prohibited Use of Weapons in Colorado. The gun was unloaded but the person was intoxicated and sitting in a car parked at his home. Also, the gun was not concealed.
    So many things wrong here..

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Pawhuska Oklahoma
    Posts
    16

    Drinking at home?

    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    There is a problem here and it needs to be corrected.

    A citizen can be prosecuted if he is intoxicated, in his own home, and uses a firearm to defend himself. What difference is it if he is in a vehicle on his own property.

    Very bad.
    So if your intoxicated and someone bust into your house or comes on your property endangering you or family members lives you can't because your intoxicated?

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,154
    Quote Originally Posted by Kwaynem View Post
    So if your intoxicated and someone bust into your house or comes on your property endangering you or family members lives you can't because your intoxicated?
    Get your priorities straight.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  10. #10
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,828
    To demonstrate my understanding of this:

    It shall be unlawful for anyone to lawfully defend themselves with a firearm if intoxicated.
    RIGHTS don't exist without RESPONSIBILITY!
    If one is not willing to stand for his rights, he doesn't have any Rights.
    I will strive to stand for the rights of ANY person, even those folks with whom I disagree!
    As said by SVG--- "I am not anti-COP, I am PRO-Citizen" and I'll add, PRO-Constitution.
    If the above makes me a RADICAL or EXTREME--- So be it!

    Life Member NRA
    Life Member GOA
    2nd amendment says.... "...The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!"

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Pawhuska Oklahoma
    Posts
    16

    Priority's straight?

    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    Get your priorities straight.
    Mine are straight bud I was asking a question isn't this what it's all about questions and HOPEFULLY ANSWERS?

  12. #12
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,876
    NC, if you blow anything at a checkpoint and are CHP armed, your firearm will be immediately confiscated; if you are not legally intoxicated, you will be allowed to drive home minus your firearm.

    ipse
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,154
    Quote Originally Posted by Kwaynem View Post
    Mine are straight bud I was asking a question isn't this what it's all about questions and HOPEFULLY ANSWERS?
    Really, how do you know they are straight if you had to troll (as in fishing) the question?

    Why don't you tell US your "answer" and we'll criticize it.
    Last edited by Nightmare; 04-27-2016 at 06:47 PM.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Pawhuska Oklahoma
    Posts
    16

    Defending you and family while intoxicated

    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    Really, how do you know they are straight if you had to troll (as in fishing) the question?

    Why don't you tell US your "answer" and we'll criticize it.
    First off my priority's are straight. But the above statements got me wondering. Say it's new years eve your weapon is in a lock box and everyone is celebrating. An intruder comes onto your property and starts threatening you or family with a weapon. Do you just stand there and watch your family get injured or worse because you had a few drinks? I understand the rules as far as alcohol and whatever is legal in other states I was raised right and raised mine the same. But a person should not be judged just because they ask a question that may be silly for others. People surf the web all the time for questions and some end up here. But if the question should arise it should not be delt with by "get your priority's straight"

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,154
    On my property, in my home, my gun is not in a lockbox even if I am knee-walking commode hugging power puking sick. That was a long time ago that, for instance I drank my Dolphins.

    Now, what is your answer that you still haven't given?
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Pawhuska Oklahoma
    Posts
    16

    I'm done

    I'll find another place for q&a I was just curious and I wasn't trolling sorry to bother everyone I just got on here cause I seen Oklahoma open carry

  17. #17
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    Get your priorities straight.
    Quote Originally Posted by Kwaynem View Post
    I'll find another place for q&a I was just curious and I wasn't trolling sorry to bother everyone I just got on here cause I seen Oklahoma open carry

    Seems some folks think we have so many allies that we can afford to run off those we have for trivial reasons.

    Nightmare, Kwaynem asked a question about the legality of using a gun to defend himself and family, in his home, while he happens to be intoxicated. Seems a perfectly legit question to me. What do you think justified the wholly unpleasant and terse response you gave him? Is there a prior history there I've missed?

    Simply and shortly put, lighten up and maybe don't assume the worst possible interpretation of every post.


    Fact is, as stupid, unjust, and flat out wrong as the law may be, in some jurisdictions the law on the books is just as JoeSparky summarized rather clearly. Worse, when taken together with what constitutes "possession" in other cases, one might conclude that in some jurisdictions a gun owner violates the law by being intoxicated inside his own home if any of his guns are in the home at all: whether locked up or not. After all, the drunk home-owner has the key or combo to the safe doesn't he? He is in legal "possession" of the guns while he is intoxicated even if they are not on his person.

    I don't drink so not an issue 99.99% of the time. But on the rare occasion I might be impaired on pain meds post medical treatment????

    Risk of prosecution is probably quite low in most sensible jurisdictions even if the gun were used in defense of self/family while at home and intoxicated. But the law is there. And needs to be changed rather than merely ignored and violated.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    On my property, in my home, my gun is not in a lockbox even if I am knee-walking commode hugging power puking sick. That was a long time ago that, for instance I drank my Dolphins.

    Now, what is your answer that you still haven't given?
    Depending on your jurisdiction you may be admitting to having committed a crime.

    More importantly, your pushing another member to admit to a similar violation of law may be a violation of rule #15:


    (15) WE ADVOCATE FOR THE 'LAW-ABIDING' ONLY: Posts advocating illegal acts of any kind are NOT welcome here. Even if you feel that a law is unconstitutional we do not break it, we repeal it or defeat it in the courts.

    I will go so far as to support amnesty for a prohibited person whose violation of an anti possession law came to light only because he was in fear for his life and used a gun in lawful self-defense. Of course, I also don't think we should have any "prohibited persons" walking the streets unsupervised. But as a first step, let's stop throwing guys into jail because their technically illegally possessed gun was used to save their life.

    But until such time as we get the laws changed, forum rules prohibit advocating that anyone possess a gun while not legally permitted to possess a gun. And in many jurisdictions, that includes while being intoxicated. Sadly, I've yet to read such a law that had an exception for ones own home, camp, or other property.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  18. #18
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,876
    Quote Originally Posted by Kwaynem View Post
    I'll find another place for q&a I was just curious and I wasn't trolling sorry to bother everyone I just got on here cause I seen Oklahoma open carry
    then remember the olde adage kway, curiosity killed the cat...

    now you toddled into a Colorado thread and asked about use of a firearm in defending your family on/in property/home while/having alcohol/substances in your system.

    your query was answered yet you have taken to decide to huff and puff away because you took exception to the answer.

    you, of course, are welcome to try and find another place to satisfy your curiosity but you will discover there isn't any place who's membership challenges the information put on the forum for accuracy and you will not satisfy that curiosity.

    wish you well in which ever street you now toddle down.

    ipse
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  19. #19
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,876
    Quote Originally Posted by utbagpiper View Post
    snipp

    More importantly, your pushing another member to admit to a similar violation of law may be a violation of rule #15:

    (15) WE ADVOCATE FOR THE 'LAW-ABIDING' ONLY: Posts advocating illegal acts of any kind are NOT welcome here. Even if you feel that a law is unconstitutional we do not break it, we repeal it or defeat it in the courts.

    Charles
    casting stones...numerous statements on this forum about violating business operators rights about CC'g, sometimes, i think you stated sloppily, and as recently as seven days agao quote: When I am just visiting someone, I have no qualms OCing despite the gun buster signs...unquote.

    post 3 from http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ry-(off-topic)

    ipse
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Pawhuska Oklahoma
    Posts
    16

    Thanks

    Quote Originally Posted by utbagpiper View Post
    Seems some folks think we have so many allies that we can afford to run off those we have for trivial reasons.

    Nightmare, Kwaynem asked a question about the legality of using a gun to defend himself and family, in his home, while he happens to be intoxicated. Seems a perfectly legit question to me. What do you think justified the wholly unpleasant and terse response you gave him? Is there a prior history there I've missed?

    Simply and shortly put, lighten up and maybe don't assume the worst possible interpretation of every post.


    Fact is, as stupid, unjust, and flat out wrong as the law may be, in some jurisdictions the law on the books is just as JoeSparky summarized rather clearly. Worse, when taken together with what constitutes "possession" in other cases, one might conclude that in some jurisdictions a gun owner violates the law by being intoxicated inside his own home if any of his guns are in the home at all: whether locked up or not. After all, the drunk home-owner has the key or combo to the safe doesn't he? He is in legal "possession" of the guns while he is intoxicated even if they are not on his person.

    I don't drink so not an issue 99.99% of the time. But on the rare occasion I might be impaired on pain meds post medical treatment????

    Risk of prosecution is probably quite low in most sensible jurisdictions even if the gun were used in defense of self/family while at home and intoxicated. But the law is there. And needs to be changed rather than merely ignored and violated.



    Depending on your jurisdiction you may be admitting to having committed a crime.

    More importantly, your pushing another member to admit to a similar violation of law may be a violation of rule #15:


    (15) WE ADVOCATE FOR THE 'LAW-ABIDING' ONLY: Posts advocating illegal acts of any kind are NOT welcome here. Even if you feel that a law is unconstitutional we do not break it, we repeal it or defeat it in the courts.

    I will go so far as to support amnesty for a prohibited person whose violation of an anti possession law came to light only because he was in fear for his life and used a gun in lawful self-defense. Of course, I also don't think we should have any "prohibited persons" walking the streets unsupervised. But as a first step, let's stop throwing guys into jail because their technically illegally possessed gun was used to save their life.

    But until such time as we get the laws changed, forum rules prohibit advocating that anyone possess a gun while not legally permitted to possess a gun. And in many jurisdictions, that includes while being intoxicated. Sadly, I've yet to read such a law that had an exception for ones own home, camp, or other property.

    Charles
    Thank you sir that's all I was asking for was an answer you are a gentleman of knowledge and I appreciate it

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Pawhuska Oklahoma
    Posts
    16

    Sorry for "trolling"

    Quote Originally Posted by Kwaynem View Post
    Thank you sir that's all I was asking for was an answer you are a gentleman of knowledge and I appreciate it
    Didn't mean to change the subject just thought it kind of pertained to property issues no need in response I won't be back again sorry for trolling wasn't my intention

  22. #22
    Regular Member garand_guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    495
    I think you're out of luck. No exemption for an unloaded weapon. Possession seems to be defined under your immediate physical control.

    18-12-106. Prohibited use of weapons
    (d) The person has in his or her possession a firearm while the person is under the influence of intoxicating liquor or of a controlled substance, as defined in section 18-18-102 (5). Possession of a permit issued under section 18-12-105.1, as it existed prior to its repeal, or possession of a permit or a temporary emergency permit issued pursuant to part 2 of this article is no defense to a violation of this subsection (1).

    Common sense definition of "possession", as it is used in subsection (1)(d) is the actual or physical control of a firearm. People v. Garcia, 197 Colo. 550, 595 P.2d 228 (1979).

    The determination of whether or not a firearm is within one's actual or physical control is a question of fact for the jury. However, it is clear that the mere ownership of a firearm is not sufficient to constitute "possession" under the statute. Some of the factors which could be considered by the trier of fact in
    making this determination are: (1) the proximity of the defendant to the firearm; (2) the ordinary place of storage of the firearm; (3) the defendant's awareness of the presence of the firearm; (4) locks or other physical impediments which preclude ready access to the firearm.

    Failure to define "under the influence of intoxicating liquor", if error, was harmless, where defendant, charged with violation of this section, testified that he was too drunk to drive. People v. Beckett, 782 P.2d 812 (Colo. App. 1989), aff'd, 800 P.2d 74 (Colo. 1990).

    Possession of a firearm while intoxicated is a strict liability offense, therefore, the trial court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury that "knowingly" was an element of the offense. People v. Wilson, 972 P.2d 701 (Colo. App. 1998).

    Self-defense is not a valid defense to the crime of prohibited use of weapons. People v. Beckett, 782 P.2d 812 (Colo. App. 1989), aff'd, 800 P.2d 74 (Colo. 1990).

    "In May 1987, the defendant and his friend, while attending a party, became involved in an altercation with Ralph Cirillo and two of his friends. As the defendant left the party and Cirillo and his friends followed him to his car, the defendant raised his hand to one of Cirillo's friends and stated, "You're this close to death." When the defendant reached his car, he reached under the front seat, pulled out an automatic pistol, pointed it at Cirillo, and stated, "This is all it takes, pal." Subsequently, the defendant was disarmed and restrained until the police arrived. The defendant testified at trial that Cirillo and his friends were large persons, that they were angry, and that he was afraid Cirillo and his two friends would harm him."
    CRS 18-12-106

    http://law.justia.com/cases/colorado...89sc417-0.html

    http://www.constitution.org/2ll/bard...e_v_garcia.txt
    Nevada Carry and Frontier Carry

    Helpful guide to gun laws in the Intermountain West

  23. #23
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Kwaynem View Post
    Didn't mean to change the subject just thought it kind of pertained to property issues no need in response I won't be back again sorry for trolling wasn't my intention
    I hope you hang around. Don't let one unpleasant post run you off. Yours was a completely legitimate question. Nightmare's response was out of line, and out of character for the forum.

    All the best.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  24. #24
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,613
    Quote Originally Posted by solus View Post
    casting stones...numerous statements on this forum about violating business operators rights about CC'g, sometimes, i think you stated sloppily, and as recently as seven days agao quote: When I am just visiting someone, I have no qualms OCing despite the gun buster signs...unquote.

    post 3 from http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ry-(off-topic)

    ipse
    Yet he neither breaks the law nor advocates doing so.

    The last full sentence of your quote should read:
    "When I am just visiting someone, I have no qualms OCing despite the gun buster signs on local hospitals since in my State the signs have no legal effect and carrying is perfectly legal."
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  25. #25
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Colorado girl View Post
    What should someone expect from a summons for Prohibited Use of Weapons in Colorado. The gun was unloaded but the person was intoxicated and sitting in a car parked at his home. Also, the gun was not concealed.
    A person commits the crime of prohibited use of a weapon, C.R.S. 18-12-106, if the person a) knowingly aims a firearm at another, b) recklessly or negligently discharges a firearm, c) knowingly sets a loaded gun, trap or explosive device and leaves it improperly attended, d) possesses a firearm while under the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance, or e) knowingly aims, swings or throws a nunchaku or throwing star. CRS Sec. 18-12-107 :This offense is a class 2 misdemeanor. A person who has been convicted of a second offense in five years is guilty of a class 5 felony.


    Can't really say because the statue has incremental degrees of penalties. Sounds like subsection (d) is at play.

    Gun not loaded does not equal ammo not in possession .... so can't say anything further on that.

    The state has to prove all the elements of the offense...clearly having a device that can shoot a projectile (ie firearm) is one and he was under the influence of something is the second.

    Since its a misdemeanor, a judge might give him the opportunity to enter some type of entry into a diversion program, if one is available.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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