Talk:Gun laws in Colorado

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2012 Aurora shooting[edit]

Canoe1967 asked me to post a link to a discussion on Canoe1967's talkpage here, so here it is: Click here to read the discussion. Arcandam (talk) 04:28, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

stand your ground[edit]

Mudwater I saw your change re SYG. Colorado does not have an explicit SYG statute, but they are indeed a "no duty to retreat" state. http://legisource.net/2013/10/03/does-colorado-have-a-stand-your-ground-law-2/ (A blog that's masthead says "An informational and educational resource for the Colorado General Assembly by the Office of Legislative Legal Services." points to several court cases discussing duty to retreat in Colorado

  • http://caselaw.findlaw.com/co-supreme-court/1018064.html The very first paragraph covers the relevant points
    • Toler objected to the jury instruction defining self-defense, claiming that the instruction could have improperly misled the jury to believe that a trespasser must “retreat to the wall” before using physical force to defend himself.   Despite Toler's objection, the trial court gave the jury instruction, and the jury convicted Toler of second degree murder.   The court of appeals concluded that the jury instruction erroneously imposed a limitation on Toler's right to claim self-defense and reversed.
    • We hold that under section 18-1-704 a person does not have to “retreat to the wall” before using deadly force to defend himself, unless the person was the “initial aggressor” in the encounter, even if he was in a place he had no right to be.
    • Like many jurisdictions, Colorado adopted as part of its common law the “no duty to retreat” rule for the use of deadly force in self-defense.   See Boykin v. People
  • Boykin v People (convenience link) http://lawofselfdefense.com/law_case/boykin-v-people-45-p-419-co-supreme-court-1896/
    • But where a defendant is where he has a right to be, as, for example, a police officer engaged in making an arrest, and is assaulted by the deceased in a way that defendant honestly and in good faith believes, and the circumstances being such as would induce a like belief in a reasonable man, that he is about to receive at the hands of his assailant great bodily harm, or to lose his life, the defendant, if he did not provoke the assault, or is not within some of the exceptions above noted, is not obliged to retreat or flee to save his life, but may stand his ground, and even, in some circumstances, pursue his assailant until the latter has been disarmed or disabled from carrying into effect his unlawful purpose; and this right of the defendant goes even to the extent, if necessary, of taking human life.
  • Enyart v People http://lawofselfdefense.com/law_case/enyart-v-people-180-p-722-co-supreme-court-1919/

So perhaps we should put a qualified "Yes" or "No duty to retreat", and point to these court cases as citations? Gaijin42 (talk) 15:34, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Gaijin42: I admit I haven't studied this too closely, but on second look it still seems to me that there is at least some duty to retreat in Colorado when in public, i.e. when not in one's dwelling where the castle doctrine would apply. The reference in my edit summary, to the Denver Post article, says that Colorado doesn't have stand your ground. And looking at the first link you provided, to the Colorado LegiSource article, that also seems to be saying that there's no stand your ground, again, when in public and not in one's dwelling. That said, if you want to take a shot at updating the summary table (and/or the body of the article) to be more detailed or nuanced, with one or more references, I'd say go ahead, and we can see what it looks like after that. Mudwater (Talk) 00:41, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Machine guns in Colorado[edit]

Removed completely false claim that machine guns are banned in Colorado.

Machine guns are legal to possess in Colorado so long as they are possessed in compliance with federal law. In practice this means simply that the machine gun must be on the National Firearms Act Registry, requiring simply that the owner paid the $200 NFA tax and has an approved BATFE registration form. Colorado does not require any additional registration, permission or tax to possess a machine gun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.127.185.130 (talk) 14:02, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Large Capacity Magazine Ban[edit]

Removed this from the section on large capacity magazines: "Colorado's LCM ban does not prohibit non-residents from bringing LCMs into the state for personal use, nor does it ban residents from obtaining LCMs from out-of-state sources for personal use."

This is incorrect, the law makes no exemption for non-residents, nor residents purchasing LCM's from out of state sources. The only exemption is on LCM's that were owned at the time of the law's enactment and have been owned continuously. Enforcing it is another story, however. Jlgolson (talk) 16:55, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I'm trying to sort out why this edit to add a "see also" was reverted. The best thing I can come up with is that Gowda was convicted under a federal law. Another might be that the article is just focusing on the actual law - and not convictions?

Do you know of an article about Colorado gun laws / gun control / etc. where an article about "largest gun-trafficking case" of a Colorado resident and dealer might be appropriate? Thanks so much!--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:43, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I reverted your edit because the article is only about the gun laws of Colorado, not people who may have been convicted of breaking the law. Terrorist96 (talk) 21:45, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, Do you know of an article about Colorado gun laws / gun control / etc. where an article about "largest gun-trafficking case" of a Colorado resident and dealer might be appropriate? Or, maybe we need an article about firearms convictions? Thanks so much!--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:49, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno. Perhaps a new article about this would be appropriate.Terrorist96 (talk) 21:53, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
K. I'll think about that - title, scope, etc. Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:58, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]