• 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.

Fallout from Colorado's New Transfer Laws

protias

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
7,308
Location
SE, WI
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.
 

arentol

New member
Joined
Apr 10, 2009
Messages
383
Location
Kent, Washington, USA
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:

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
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.
 

Superlite27

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2007
Messages
1,277
Location
God's Country, Missouri
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.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
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.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
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.
 

Saxxon

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2012
Messages
222
Location
Northglenn, Colorado
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.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
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.
 

MatieA

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2009
Messages
400
Location
Egbert, Wyoming, USA
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.
 

tomrkba

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2011
Messages
125
Location
Virginia
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:
Top