Man arrested with weapons at Pelosi hotel

imported post

Mike wrote:

Sonora Rebel wrote:

Simple transport of firearms in baggage doesn't require a CCW. 'Being from Wyoming... I would suspect he had one... from Wyoming. That said... the arms weren't on his person. I dunno... Denver's weird. I stay outta that place.

Click to expand...

There are states, inlcuding Virginia, who's courts have held that a handgun in a locked container = concealed handgun thus requiring permit. OUr Governor Kaine vetoed a bill that would have fixed that, at least in vehicles, last session.

A lot of gun owners forget this problem and think - oh, this is legal, no problem. No, it;s not, it;s a big problem and we need help ficing these laws.

Click to expand...

Ya know what Mike? You might be entirely right. In CO there is no real definition of "concealed". It's just a word with no written explanation in the CO Revised Statutes. It's on that technicality that the DPD is probably basing their charges on.
Any other time of the year, decade, century, etc., he would have been paid no mind and none of this would have happened. Very ugly situation here.

imported post

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;

I don't personally think that in your luggage should count as "on or about his or her person."

If in your luggage is concealed, how does a person, without a concealed permit, legally transport a gun in Denver?
In a holster? No, OC is illegal in Denver. In your hand? Try that in Pelosi's hotel and see how the SS react.

imported post

Sonora Rebel wrote:

The law of the land is the Constitution... 2A. That should be sufficient w/o any meddling. 'Shall not be infringed." speaks volumes. No caveats.

Click to expand...

We are the choir

imported post

Here's the Denver County Court information. The charge is violation of 18-12-105, carrying a concealed weapon, which is a Colorado Revised Statute. I've included the text of the statute as well. The only thing I can think applies is "Carries a firearm concealed on or about his or her person", and in the statute annotation it states: "about the person" means sufficiently close to the person to be readily accessible for immediate use. In locked cases or luggage isn't "readily accessible" to me.

Case Number: 08M14412
Case Information
Status: PRECASE Courtroom:
Case Type: Violation Date: 08/23/2008
Location:
Domestic Violence: Date Filed:
Party Information
Party Type Last Name First Name MI Suffix DOB Party Status
DEFENDANT CALANCHINI JOSEPH D 11/25/1978 BOND
Race Hair Weight Height Eyes Eyeglasses

Attorney Number Attorney Name

Violation Information
Violations Description Points Disposition
18-12-105 CARRYING A CONCEALED WEAPON
Bond Information
Bond Type: PROFESSIONAL Bond No: 313750
Surety Name: PACHECO, RONALD Arrest No: 1602514
Power No: P15K0003249 Insurance Co: PIONEER GENERAL
Bond Date Action Code Amount SOE Date Party Seq# Rel to Party
08/24/2008 17:26 POSTED $10,000.00 1

Fines and Costs Information
Description Imposed Suspended CCWP/CTS Paid Due
BOND FEE 30.00 0.00 0.00 30.00 0.00

Totals: $30.00 $0.00 $0.00 $30.00 $0.00
Action Information
Date Crtrm Judicial Officer Action Amount Dispo
09/15/2008 09:00 12T JAMES 2ND ADVISEMENT
08/24/2008 10:48 AREA RESTRICTION ORDERED
08/24/2008 10:00 12T PROTECTION ORDER
08/24/2008 10:00 12T BOND SET
08/24/2008 10:00 12T JAMES 1ST ADVISEMENT ADVISED OF RIGHTS
08/24/2008 06:41 PRE-CASE ENTERED
08/23/2008 00:00 DENVER CITY JAIL IN CUSTODY

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.
Source: L. 71: R&RE, p. 482, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 40-12-105. L. 73: p. 683, § 3. L. 77: (2)(c) amended and (2)(d) added, p. 976, § 8, effective July 1. L. 81: (2)(c) amended, p. 1437, § 3, effective June 8. L. 86: (2)(d) amended and (2)(e) added, p. 774, § 2, effective July 1. L. 89: (1)(d) added, p. 911, § 1, effective April 15. L. 93: Entire section amended, p. 964, § 1, effective July 1. L. 94: (2)(e) amended and (2)(f) added, p. 647, § 1, effective July 1. L. 2000: IP(2) amended, p. 1009, § 1, effective August 2. L. 2003: (2)(c) amended, p. 648, § 3, effective May 17; (2)(d) and (2)(e) amended, p. 1624, § 46, effective August 6.
Cross references: For affirmative defenses generally, see §§ 18-1-407, 18-1-710, and 18-1-805.

ANNOTATION
Am. Jur.2d. See 79 Am. Jur.2d, Weapons and Firearms, §§ 12-14, 16.
C.J.S. See 94 C.J.S., Weapons, §§ 9, 10.

Recognition of § 13 of art. II, Colo. Const. Section 13 of art. II, Colo. Const., has limiting language dealing with defense of home, person, and property. These limitations have been recognized by the general assembly in the enactment of this section, which restricts the right to bear arms in certain circumstances, while permitting in other circumstances the carrying of a concealed weapon in defense of home, person, and property, and also when specifically authorized by written permit. People v. Blue, 190 Colo. 95, 544 P.2d 385 (1975).

The words "about the person" means sufficiently close to the person to be readily accessible for immediate use. People in Interest of R.J.A., 38 Colo. App. 346, 556 P.2d 491 (1976).

The scope of subsection (2)(b) is clarified in § 18-12-105.6, which indicates the general assembly's intent that local ordinances on carrying weapons in private vehicles be preempted only insofar as they conflict with the provisions of § 18-12-105.6. Trinen v. City & County of Denver, 53 P.3d 754 (Colo. App. 2002).
The local ordinance concerning carrying a weapon in a private vehicle is not preempted since it can be harmonized with subsection (2)(b). Trinen v. City & County of Denver, 53 P.3d 754 (Colo. App. 2002).

Pistol tucked under edge of car seat. Where uncontested evidence established that pistol was tucked under the edge of a car seat on which petitioner was sitting, where it was within his easy reach, these circumstances constitute carrying a "firearm concealed on or about his person". People in Interest of R.J.A., 38 Colo. App. 346, 556 P.2d 491 (1976).

Question of whether weapon is concealed is question of fact for the jury which should not be summarily determined by the trial judge at the time that he rules on the defendant's motion to suppress. People v. Vincent, 628 P.2d 107 (Colo. 1981).
Former subsection (2)(c) did not confer power to issue permits for carrying concealed weapons to police chiefs and sheriffs. Douglass v. Kelton, 199 Colo. 446, 610 P.2d 1067 (1980).

Person receiving permit to carry concealed weapon cannot be convicted. Once a person receives a permit to carry a concealed weapon in a county or city, he may not be convicted under subsection (2)(c). Douglass v. Kelton, 199 Colo. 446, 610 P.2d 1067 (1980).

Statute as basis for jurisdiction. See People v. Pickett, 194 Colo. 178, 571 P.2d 1078 (1977).

Defendant could not be convicted of carrying a concealed weapon without the prosecution proving that defendant intended to use this short-bladed knife as a weapon. While the characteristics of an instrument may be an important factor in determining the intended purpose of an instrument, the language of the concealed weapons statute and established precedent establishes that a knife's design does not, by itself, prove that the person carrying it intended to use it as a weapon. A.P.E. v. People, 20 P.3d 1179 (Colo. 2001).

Applied in People v. Velasquez, 641 P.2d 943 (Colo. 1982); People v. Deschamp, 662 P.2d 171 (Colo. 1983).

imported post

There is no provison for baggage, luggage or travelers in general, or temporary lodging. Too much icing 'n no nuff cake.

Who wrote that mess... the janitor? "On or about his/her person" without addressing 'transport to and from" is way too ambiguous 'n vague. The Denver cop was grandstanding... for the Secret Service goons. You could check that stuff with TSA on board an aircraft in 'carry mode' such as that. Whutta crock.

imported post

The next question is:



Did he have access to any ammo? If the weapon isn't near any ammo (in his bag, etc), then he has a fancy, well-machined club.

imported post

It doesn't matter about the ammo. Thelongarms were cased and locked. The sidearms werecased and locked in luggage. What's he gonnado? Throw the ammo? The key here is "readily accessible for immediate use" andnone of the firearms meet that criteria in the way they were stored.

That being said, there may be alot more to the story. If he had a 6" buck knife on his belt that was covered by a garment, then they got him. If he had a sidearm on his hip under a garment with no WY permit, they got him.

Time to start digging for more info. I'd really like to sit in on that trial.

imported post

Evil Ernie wrote:

It doesn't matter about the ammo. Thelongarms were cased and locked. The sidearms werecased and locked in luggage. What's he gonnado? Throw the ammo? The key here is "readily accessible for immediate use" andnone of the firearms meet that criteria in the way they were stored.

That being said, there may be alot more to the story. If he had a 6" buck knife on his belt that was covered by a garment, then they got him. If he had a sidearm on his hip under a garment with no WY permit, they got him.

Time to start digging for more info. I'd really like to sit in on that trial.

Click to expand...

Um Evil Ernie, hate to break it to ya, but he was carrying a concealed pistol on his person without a Wyoming permit.

imported post

Mjolnir wrote:

Evil Ernie wrote:

It doesn't matter about the ammo. Thelongarms were cased and locked. The sidearms werecased and locked in luggage. What's he gonnado? Throw the ammo? The key here is "readily accessible for immediate use" andnone of the firearms meet that criteria in the way they were stored.

That being said, there may be alot more to the story. If he had a 6" buck knife on his belt that was covered by a garment, then they got him. If he had a sidearm on his hip under a garment with no WY permit, they got him.

Time to start digging for more info. I'd really like to sit in on that trial.

Click to expand...

Um Evil Ernie, hate to break it to ya, but he was carrying a concealed pistol on his person without a Wyoming permit.

Click to expand...

Really? Can you verify the source?

If that's true, then they got him over a barrel.

imported post

Source?

I haven't seen any news story about having any weapons on his person. He apparently did have two pistols in his luggage that were not in locked cases, and this is apparently what the charge is referring to, though the law doesn't say anything about locks being the difference between carrying concealed and simply transporting.

I have a few questions and comments:

First why is he talking to ANYBODY? He needs to get a lawyer, and STFU!

Second, was the search that found the pistols conducted legally? Again, he should have a lawyer.

Third, there's definitely some ambiguity in the law about exactly what constitutes concealed carry, and what is simply the legal transporting of a firearm. If carrying a firearm in your luggage (unloaded) can be considered to be concealed carry, then if you do not have a CCW, and bring your firearm to the airport using the guidelines specified by the TSA, then you could be guilty of illegally carrying a concealed weapon! This ambiguity needs to be cleared up and it needs to happen NOW!

Finally, I'd like to see someone take a locked, empty gun case into the hotel in Minneapolis where some of the republican politicians are staying, get jacked up by police, and then SUE THE CRAP out of them.

imported post

The reason I bring up ammo is intent.

Concealed carry implies that the individual has an intent for the weapon to be available for immediate or near-immediate use. If he was transporting the weapons only, with no ammo in his possession at all, then saying he was concealed carrying is a stretch.

Transporting becomes a very different story. Transporting implies that one is simply moving something from one point to another, with possible intent for use at a later time.

From what I understand, he was picking up guns to prepare for a hunting trip, or something along those lines. Having them in luggage, and in rifle cases, without any ammo in his possession, makes a much stronger case for the transporting position.

You very well can't be planning on using the firearm with ammo, now can you?

It may not be a key point, but sometimes the little details make all the difference.

imported post

Phoenixphire wrote:

The reason I bring up ammo is intent.

Concealed carry implies that the individual has an intent for the weapon to be available for immediate or near-immediate use. If he was transporting the weapons only, with no ammo in his possession at all, then saying he was concealed carrying is a stretch.

Transporting becomes a very different story. Transporting implies that one is simply moving something from one point to another, with possible intent for use at a later time.

From what I understand, he was picking up guns to prepare for a hunting trip, or something along those lines. Having them in luggage, and in rifle cases, without any ammo in his possession, makes a much stronger case for the transporting position.

You very well can't be planning on using the firearm with ammo, now can you?

It may not be a key point, but sometimes the little details make all the difference.

Click to expand...

Penalty Flag. Failure to cite to authority when proffering rule of law.

A mens rea requirement for concealed carry? Huh? In most or all states it's strict liability. There is no general "transport defense" to concealed carry. It's confused thoughts and old wives tales like the above that get people into trouble.

imported post

Phoenixphire wrote:

The reason I bring up ammo is intent.

Concealed carry implies that the individual has an intent for the weapon to be available for immediate or near-immediate use. If he was transporting the weapons only, with no ammo in his possession at all, then saying he was concealed carrying is a stretch.

Transporting becomes a very different story. Transporting implies that one is simply moving something from one point to another, with possible intent for use at a later time.

From what I understand, he was picking up guns to prepare for a hunting trip, or something along those lines. Having them in luggage, and in rifle cases, without any ammo in his possession, makes a much stronger case for the transporting position.

You very well can't be planning on using the firearm with ammo, now can you?

It may not be a key point, but sometimes the little details make all the difference.

Click to expand...

I agree with you wholeheartedly on little details, but doesn't change the fact that there are NOcommon ammo restrictionsin CO (possibly on HE or incindiary rounds but that doesn't apply here). So whether or not he had ammo should not even be an arguing point in court, but being Denver, you never know. The charge is illegal possession of a concealed weapon. I don't believe for a second that he had a sidearm on his hip under a garment. That would have been the first sentence of all media reports if not in the headline, it was never mentioned, so that is out.

Two rifles locked in case(s). Two handguns locked in cases and/or luggage. The "readily accessible for immediate use" DOES NOT PASS MUSTER!!! There's no argument here. CO law is clear on this. From what we currently know, this guy is flat out not guilty, no speculation required. If he's convicted, it's only because of an inept lawyer (heaven forbid!!!) sold him out. This is a slam dunk, plain and simple.

imported post

'Seems about an hour transpired from being accosted 'n being arrested. Meantime... he's been blind-sided 'n apparently sayin' way too much (Res Geste) pre-Miranda. Intimidation ain't the word for it. I see more to this 'report' by omission than I do in any of the rest of it. Maybe that's just me. Primary among omission is loaded... or not. (Intent) Presence of Ammo or not. I've read elsewhere where some yahoo interjected: 'What do you need a handgun for if yer goin' huntin'?" I think I'd do that in Africa... or even bear country. Major difference betweencritters that couldkill you'n geese.

Thiswas a grandstanding arrest in the presence of Secret Service. (Gotta 'look good' for the Imperial Guard...)

Amazingly... the legislature that wrote this 'law' FAILED to address the dynamic of merely transporting firearms from one point to another as baggage. Are there shooting ranges in Denver? How do folks get 'em there 'n back home again w/o gettin' jacked up for the same 'offense'? He was a traveler seeking lodging. Yeah... he should'a made reservations... He might have been aware of the DNC circus in town... But seems not to have considered that. (That's not a crime... )

All in all tho... the 2Atrumps all this pre-emptive crap which violates the intent of the 2A. The word in this instance being 'Keep' such Arms. To "Bear' means having them at the ready.

Legislation such as this is another example of people being educated beyond reasonable usefulness.

imported post

Evil Ernie wrote:

Two handguns locked in cases and/or luggage. The "readily accessible for immediate use" DOES NOT PASS MUSTER!!! There's no argument here. CO law is clear on this.

Click to expand...

Were the cases locked?

So what if they were locked - what is the Colo. law on nthis - cite to authority. In Virginia, you would be illegally concealing unless you have a concealed permit, assuming the judges followed case law for locked car cosoles.

imported post

According to news reports the rifle cases were locked, and the handguns were locked in the luggage. There are no "secure weapons" laws, triggerlock laws, gun safe laws in the State of Colorado. Firearm security is left to owner/handler discretion. Joe C having his firearms cased and locked (as per news reports) was HIS own doing for security.
There Mike, ya drug it outta me!

Immediate use. Immediate as in "Right now". I see immediate use as this example. A loaded handgun/longgun sitting on the coffee table, carseat, picnic bench, etc., within reach of the user. Does this mean that he's in "unlawful possession of weapon" if we walks too close to someone with a valid CCW and a concealed sidearm? I don't know, but by the way the DPD handled this, it might be!
This case is definitely going to determine exactly what "sufficiently close to the person to be readily accessible for immediate use" means.

As far as the Transport of firearms in Colorado, I submit CRS 18-12-105.6. I know that this says Automobiles, but aren't legs private conveyance? Yeah, this might be a bit of a stretch here, but private conveyance all the same.

[align=justify]18-12-105.6. Limitation on local ordinances regarding firearms in private vehicles.[/align]


18-12-105 (2) (b) and 18-12-105.5 (3) (c), may tend to travel within a county, city and county, or municipal jurisdiction or in or through different county, city and county, and municipal jurisdictions, en route to the person's destination;[/font][/size][/align]







[align=justify](b) Inconsistent laws exist in local jurisdictions with regard to the circumstances under which weapons may be carried in automobiles and other private means of conveyance;[/align]







[align=justify](c) This inconsistency creates a confusing patchwork of laws that unfairly subjects a person who lawfully travels with a weapon to criminal penalties because he or she travels within a jurisdiction or into or through another jurisdiction;[/align]







[align=justify](d) This inconsistency places citizens in the position of not knowing when they may be violating local laws while traveling within a jurisdiction or in, through, or between different jurisdictions, and therefore being unable to avoid committing a crime.[/align]







[align=justify](2) (a) Based on the findings specified in subsection (1) of this section, the general assembly concludes that the carrying of weapons in private automobiles or other private means of conveyance for hunting or for lawful protection of a person's or another's person or property while traveling into, through, or within, a municipal, county, or city and county jurisdiction, regardless of the number of times the person stops in a jurisdiction, is a matter of statewide concern and is not an offense.[/align]







[align=justify](b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no municipality, county, or city and county shall have the authority to enact or enforce any ordinance or resolution that would restrict a person's ability to travel with a weapon in a private automobile or other private means of conveyance for hunting or for lawful protection of a person's or another's person or property while traveling into, through, or within, a municipal, county, or city and county jurisdiction, regardless of the number of times the person stops in a jurisdiction.[/align]


[align=justify][/align]





[align=justify] Source: L. 2000: Entire section added, p. 1009, § 2, effective August 2. L. 2003: Entire section amended, p. 651, § 1, effective March 18.[/align]
OK, enough for now. Worked all night and need some sleep.

imported post

Evil Ernie wrote:

According to news reports the rifle cases were locked, and the handguns were locked in the luggage. There are no "secure weapons" laws, triggerlock laws, gun safe laws in the State of Colorado. Firearm security is left to owner/handler discretion. Joe C having his firearms cased and locked (as per news reports) was HIS own doing for security.
There Mike, ya drug it outta me!

Click to expand...

But what do the courts of colorado say the law means? In Virginia, a gun in a locked container may be held to be concealed.

imported post

It's just that sort'a dumbass nonsense these legal eagles 'n political hacksneed to address. That's the stuff we pay them to do. They forget about that minor detail.

Problem is we keep re-electing these same schmucks over 'n ove again. We're hiring incompetents on the flimsiest of reasons. How much attention do we give State Legislators. Most times... we have no idea who the hell they are... what their performance or agendais like... Nuthin' All we know is party and gender. 'Same with Judges where elected.

:cuss:

imported post

New stuff from Denver... ABC producer caught on film gettin' jacked up by Denver's sidewalk Storm Troopers 'front of a 'political' hotel. If this is what passes for cops... Denver 'n Chicago have a LOT in common. Thugs!

imported post

Mike wrote:

Phoenixphire wrote:

The reason I bring up ammo is intent.

Concealed carry implies that the individual has an intent for the weapon to be available for immediate or near-immediate use. If he was transporting the weapons only, with no ammo in his possession at all, then saying he was concealed carrying is a stretch.

Transporting becomes a very different story. Transporting implies that one is simply moving something from one point to another, with possible intent for use at a later time.

From what I understand, he was picking up guns to prepare for a hunting trip, or something along those lines. Having them in luggage, and in rifle cases, without any ammo in his possession, makes a much stronger case for the transporting position.

You very well can't be planning on using the firearm with ammo, now can you?

It may not be a key point, but sometimes the little details make all the difference.

Click to expand...

Penalty Flag. Failure to cite to authority when proffering rule of law.

A mens rea requirement for concealed carry? Huh? In most or all states it's strict liability. There is no general "transport defense" to concealed carry. It's confused thoughts and old wives tales like the above that get people into trouble.

Click to expand...

I didn'tintend tostate that it was a definitive defense.

I was trying to state thatit lendsto his state of mind. If he wants to make the arguement that the enforcement of this law is unconstitutional, it strengthens the arguement because now a fellow can't even prepare for a hunting trip.

If he had the guns loaded, or with ammo in a magazine in the same container, or even ammo in his possession, then he is more of a "danger", and his claim may be "weakened". The prosecution could argue he knew of Pelosi being in the hotel, and he was going to arm up in his room, etc.

The fact that he was just picking up his weapons, without ammo, takes away from that arguement.

In rereading my post, I see where one could come to the conculsion that I was opining that not having ammo would prevent a concealed carry charge.

I never intended tostate that not having ammo immediately exempted him from the law. I simply stated that little details like that often strengthen or weaken a position in a defense, be it constitutional violation or otherwise.

(I was posting at 6 am, after working a full shift overnight. Not the most proficient writer at that point of my day... :?)