• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Possession of unloaded gun in parked car while intoxicated in Colorado

Colorado girl

Newbie
Joined
Feb 26, 2016
Messages
1
Location
Douglas County
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.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
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
 

jackrockblc

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2014
Messages
256
Location
Jefferson County, CO
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.

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).
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
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...fo=off&searchtype=get&search=C.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.
 

rushcreek2

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2010
Messages
909
Location
Colorado Springs. CO
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.
 

lukaszu

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2012
Messages
73
Location
Brighton
..

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..
 

Kwaynem

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2016
Messages
16
Location
Pawhuska Oklahoma
Drinking at home?

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?
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
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
 

Kwaynem

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2016
Messages
16
Location
Pawhuska Oklahoma
Defending you and family while intoxicated

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"
 

Kwaynem

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2016
Messages
16
Location
Pawhuska Oklahoma
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
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
Get your priorities straight.

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.

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
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
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
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
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/showthread.php?132837-Surgery-(off-topic)

ipse
 

Kwaynem

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2016
Messages
16
Location
Pawhuska Oklahoma
Thanks



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
 

Kwaynem

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2016
Messages
16
Location
Pawhuska Oklahoma
Sorry for "trolling"

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
 

garand_guy

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2014
Messages
493
Location
Nevada
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/supreme-court/1990/89sc417-0.html

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/bardwell/people_v_garcia.txt
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
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
 
Top