Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Deny-On-Arrest

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Lakewood, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    1,250

    Post imported post

    Colorado: House Considering “Deny-On-Arrest” Legislation

    Friday, April 09, 2010

    The Colorado House of Representatives is currently considering legislation that would that would solidify an unconstitutional provision in the state’s background check system.

    House Bill 1391, sponsored by State Representative Joe Rice (D-38), would extend a provision in state law that wasdue to sunset in July 2010. The provision the bill extends would deny gun purchases to those with an arrest on their record, even if they were never convicted.

    Sources:
    http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=5706



    Any comments? Innocent before proven guilty; anyone? How many of us would be rendered ineligible under HB 1391?


    I heard this, first, last night on Fox 31 News. I about fell out of my seat.

    This seems unfitting for the great State of Colorado.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,187

    Post imported post

    From the Statute:

    Is the subject of an indictment, an information, or a felony complaint alleging that the prospective transferee has committed a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year as defined in 18 U.S.C. sec. 921 (a) (20), as amended, and either there has been no final disposition of the case or the final disposition is not noted in the other databases.

    That sounds to me like it applies tosomeone who has been indicted and formally charged and the case is pending. I.e. you've been arrested, charged, but whether you are convicted is still pending. If you're arrested without being formally charged, or charges are dropped, or found not guilty, the arrest on your recordhas no bearing on your purchase. Moreover it needs to be a felony and punishable by over a year in prison.

    It's still unconstitutional and "guilty until proven innocent" motivation, but it doesn't apply to getting arrested for driving with an expired license.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    28

    Post imported post

    mahkagari wrote:
    From the Statute:

    Is the subject of an indictment, an information, or a felony complaint alleging that the prospective transferee has committed a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year as defined in 18 U.S.C. sec. 921 (a) (20), as amended, and either there has been no final disposition of the case or the final disposition is not noted in the other databases.

    That sounds to me like it applies tosomeone who has been indicted and formally charged and the case is pending. I.e. you've been arrested, charged, but whether you are convicted is still pending. If you're arrested without being formally charged, or charges are dropped, or found not guilty, the arrest on your recordhas no bearing on your purchase. Moreover it needs to be a felony and punishable by over a year in prison.

    It's still unconstitutional and "guilty until proven innocent" motivation, but it doesn't apply to getting arrested for driving with an expired license.
    Not true because colorado does not update disposition or dropped cases. They just leave them pending. It is up to the person involved to get a copy of the court records (for a fee of course) then get them stamped from a court official verifying that disposition has been completed or charges dropped (for another fee of course) then sendthose recordsto CBI to officially get updated and your record cleared.

    This is a terrible bill and we all need to let our reps know it.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,187

    Post imported post

    weaponize wrote:
    Not true because colorado does not update disposition or dropped cases. They just leave them pending. It is up to the person involved to get a copy of the court records (for a fee of course) then get them stamped from a court official verifying that disposition has been completed or charges dropped (for another fee of course) then sendthose recordsto CBI to officially get updated and your record cleared.
    Well, that's just irritating.

  5. #5
    Lone Star Veteran Ian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    712

    Post imported post

    Wow this bill is ridiculous. If you are not prohibited from owning a gun by Federal law, nothing should stop you from buying one.

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787

    Post imported post

    Notice the "D" in this phrase: "State Representative Joe Rice (D-38)"

    I have nothing against democrats per say, but I observe that 99% of the anti-gun legislation was proposed by a representative with a D after their name rather than an R.

    Did you write them, yet?

    It's not a case of "innocent until proven guilty," but rather, a case of rights which are infringed up without due cause. Having an arrest on your record means nothing. It does not equate to a felony, a misdemeanor, or even a parking ticket. Furthermore, for everyone that's ever been convicted of any crime, there are probably three times as many people who've been arrested.

    Finally, even a misdemeanor is insufficient grounds under CRS to deny purchase! (I think...) Since an arrest means nothing, certainly less than a conviction for a misdemeanor, this is nothing but a backdoor attempt by Joe Rice to curtail handgun purchases in this state.

    Haven't you written your state representatives YET???

    No excuse:

    http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Governors.shtml

    http://www.leg.state.co.us/Clics/CLI...y?openframeset

    JUSAT DO IT! What are you waiting for? Would you rather see this bill PASS then have to go through years of court battles and hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars to see it overturned???

    Do it!

    - since9
    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.

Posting Permissions

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