Man arrested for carrying 2 concealed handguns


PDA






TheeBadOne
January 5, 2004, 02:11 PM
BRECKENRIDGE - Police arrested a man just before midnight on New Year's Eve after an altercation involving urination, a chase and two handguns.

An officer on foot patrol in the 500 block of S. Main Street spotted the man, later identified as Michael Scott Holden, 28, allegedly relieving himself on the sidewalk.

The officer identified himself, according to a police department statement, but Holden did not look up.

The officer asked Holden for identification; Holden said he didn't have any. The officer asked a second and third time, and then Holden turned away as if to flee.

According to the police department statement, it was at this point that the officer noticed a .38-caliber revolver in a holster on Holden's waistband.

Holden reportedly ran, and the officer gave chase, shouting for Holden to stop.

The officer tackled Holden and the gun skidded across the sidewalk. Police later found a .22-caliber pistol in the snow nearby that Holden reportedly said was his; officers also found ammunition in Holden's clothes. Both revolvers were fully loaded.

Holden was booked into the Summit County Jail on charges of prohibited use of a weapon, carrying a concealed weapon, indecent exposure and obstruction of a police officer.

Holden also had a warrant for his arrest for failure to appear on a previous charge.

article (http://www.summitdaily.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040105/NEWS/401050105&rs=2)

If you enjoyed reading about "Man arrested for carrying 2 concealed handguns" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
mtnbkr
January 5, 2004, 02:20 PM
Where does it say he was arrested for two handguns?

Chris

TheeBadOne
January 5, 2004, 02:21 PM
The article indicated he was carrying two pistols and charged with carrying a concealed weapon.

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
January 5, 2004, 02:24 PM
Neither handgun appeared to be concealed in this story. One was visible to the Officer on the citizen's waistband, the other was sitting inthe snow.

As far as I can tell, from Packing.org, it looks as if open carry is legal in Colorado.

FPrice
January 5, 2004, 02:27 PM
"Holden was booked into the Summit County Jail on charges of...indecent exposure...and obstruction of a police officer"

"Holden also had a warrant for his arrest for failure to appear on a previous charge."

Sure sounds like an upstanding citizen to me.

TheeBadOne
January 5, 2004, 02:29 PM
Not enough information (as usual) in the newspaper article to know exactly what happened. Did the concealed charge come from one or both handguns? Perhaps the 1st one was concealed under a jacket and reveiled when he moved (or the second one)? We don't know. Hopefully someone local can provide more details (or someone actually involved with the department or jail). :confused:

TallPine
January 5, 2004, 02:34 PM
carrying a concealed weapon, indecent exposure
Charged with concealing what he shouldn't have, and not concealing what he should have.

:D

FPrice
January 5, 2004, 02:39 PM
"Charged with concealing what he shouldn't have, and not concealing what he should have."

ROFL!!!!:D

TheeBadOne
January 5, 2004, 02:42 PM
Charged with concealing what he shouldn't have, and not concealing what he should have.
omg http://mindscraps.com/s/otn/other/ignore.gif

7.62FullMetalJacket
January 5, 2004, 03:08 PM
charges of prohibited use of a weapon

Is that related to public urination?:uhoh:

Really, where did he use the revolver(s)?

Wildalaska
January 5, 2004, 04:55 PM
Another hero

WildsarcasmAlaska

Publicola
January 5, 2004, 06:37 PM
Open carry is legal in Colorado, although some towns & cities don't really think they have to rspect the state constitution, the federal constitution, or the recently passed pre-emption law.

Seems to me that there is no proof he was carrying concealed. He had his back to the officer until after he was tackled according to the news story. One handgun was clearly spotted by the cop, the other could have been carried openly but not visble with his back to the cop.

But the obstruction charge sounds bogus on its face, unless the cops are saying that because he ran he obstructed them.

What's more likely is that his refusal to produce I.D. (or denial he had any on him) triggered the obstruction charge. Last time I looked there was no law requiring any citizen to carry papers with him, unless he was driving.

It's really not a lot of info, but given what the news paper has said I could understand the indecent exposure charge (although an affirmitive defense of " I really, really had to go" should be allowed) but everything else seems less than cool.

However this business of detaining someone merely for possession - even concealed possession - has got to stop. Likewise I'm not thrilled with the tactics used by the press. Is it really a big deal that a person carrying firearms had them loaded? What's next, "Man charged with speeding had gas in car"? Carrying around an unloaded weapon would seem kind of silly wouldn't it?

In any event seems like they potentially have a case for public urination, & the outstanding warrant (depending on the nature of said warrant - I would look at it differently if it was for violating an unconstitutional law).
But the concealed weapons charge & obstruction charge seem questionable at best. & what was the prohibited use of a weapon thing about? He was merely possessing from what the article said. No mention was made of any use.

WonderNine
January 5, 2004, 06:41 PM
"Holden was booked into the Summit County Jail on charges of...indecent exposure...and obstruction of a police officer"

"Holden also had a warrant for his arrest for failure to appear on a previous charge."

Sure sounds like an upstanding citizen to me.

The article read like something out of NAZI Germany if you ask me.

What the hell is the point of running this guy through the legal wringer? My tax dollars at work. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

:cuss:

The officer asked Holden for identification; Holden said he didn't have any. The officer asked a second and third time,

What, is the officer as brain dead or something? :scrutiny:

rock jock
January 5, 2004, 06:54 PM
What a pillar of the community. We need more fine, upstanding citizens like this to promote the cause of CCW. :rolleyes:

Standing Wolf
January 5, 2004, 07:57 PM
I have no sympathy for people who urinate in public places.

Atticus
January 5, 2004, 08:18 PM
This is my rifle...this is my gun.......oh, it's all so confusing when you're drunk.

Roadkill Coyote
January 5, 2004, 10:07 PM
I think they were probably charging subsection D...

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 12-22-303 (7), C.R.S. 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).

7.62FullMetalJacket
January 6, 2004, 02:22 AM
Thanks Coyote,

I guess I have a problem with the word "use" in that subsection. The subsection is pretty clear, though.

FPrice
January 6, 2004, 07:18 AM
"What the hell is the point of running this guy through the legal wringer? My tax dollars at work."

Yeah, you do have a point.

Tell you what, give us YOUR address and we'll send all of the drunks to urinate (and more) in YOUR front yard. THAT oughta make it less like "NAZI Germany". Don't you agree?

:rolleyes:

tyme
January 6, 2004, 08:25 AM
The article doesn't say he was urinating on anyone's lawn.
The article doesn't say he was drunk. People who aren't drunk have to relieve themselves as well.
The officer asked Holden for identification; Holden said he didn't have any. The officer asked a second and third time, and then Holden turned away as if to flee.
Open carry is technically legal, and some locations in CO issue permits under a shall-issue policy, right? What did this (maybe drunk) person do to justify being tackled? M. Holden "fled" (sounds like walked away to me) from an (alleged) cop who repeatedly asked for something M. Holden had already said he didn't have.

TheeBadOne
January 6, 2004, 10:55 AM
He had him for public urination and indecent exposure. The drunk decided to try to avoid that by;

1st not telling the Office his name, nor providing identification upon request.

2nd by trying to elude the Officer by fleeing on foot. (thus, the tackle, as the Officer shouted for the drunk to stop, and he didn't/wouldn't).

Soooo, now that you've ignored the Officer and tried to blow him off and escape, try to convince him you're a good person and to ignore the CC issue.... :scrutiny:

TarpleyG
January 6, 2004, 11:31 AM
Where did it state in the article that the guy was drinking or otherwise "intoxicated?" Must've missed it. As "upstanding" as this guy might be, that's no excuse for the police to throw charges at him and abuse authority.

GT

TheeBadOne
January 6, 2004, 11:35 AM
Where did it state in the article that the guy was drinking or otherwise "intoxicated?" Must've missed it. As "upstanding" as this guy might be, that's no excuse for the police to throw charges at him and abuse authority.
Where did it say in the article that the Officer (much less "the police") abused his authority?

I suspect the Police report is more complete than a short article from the newpaper. Perhaps someone in the area could get a copy of the report and post it.

2 cents

artherd
January 6, 2004, 04:27 PM
Guy sounds like a real doofus. You don't *run* from the cops so they have to *tackle* you! Especially if you're illegally carrying concealed. (and a gun under a jacket that accidentally flashes into visibility is NOT open carry kids!)

I'm all for checks and ballances, but this does not seem to be a case of anything more than good cops doing their jobs. I'm surprised he didn't shoot the guy when he ran.

Gewehr98
January 6, 2004, 08:59 PM
Maybe the intoxication charge, as implicated by TBO, was a fabrication just to make use of subsection D-18-12-106.

That, or somebody here's a clairvoyant, and has actually channeled himself into that police report, thereby establishing that public intoxication was actually a factor. :scrutiny:


Man arrested for carrying 2 concealed handguns


Hell, that could describe any number of THR members with CCW permits. :(

TheeBadOne
January 6, 2004, 09:09 PM
prohibited use of a weapon

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 12-22-303 (7), C.R.S. 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).

http://www.burn.com.au/forum/bbb/smilies/beer.gif

By the way, no Christmas card from you this year? :neener:

Gewehr98
January 6, 2004, 10:27 PM
And you'll never guess what it is, and which other THR members have joined me in sharing the same resolution. ;)

Now, instead of sitting there and smugly baiting me for unknown reasons, why didn't you answer the question. You know, the question that myself and at least a couple other forum members here asked, namely, where in the original article, THAT YOU TOOK SUCH GREAT PAINS TO NICELY CUT AND PASTED FROM ELSEWHERE, is there mention of intoxication? All you did was reply with Roadkill Coyote's quote of the public ordinance.

Or is that not something the readers of this forum thread are privy to? You called him a drunk, for chris'sakes. Back that allegation up. Or remove it from the discussion, if it's not really a factor. :fire:

TheeBadOne
January 6, 2004, 10:33 PM
You seem to be the one discussing it. :cool:

Gewehr98
January 6, 2004, 10:40 PM
We read it stated here:

He had him for public urination and indecent exposure. The drunk decided to try to avoid that by;

Umm, that would be the second word in the second sentence above, quoted from you-know-who. :scrutiny:

twoblink
January 6, 2004, 10:45 PM
Upstanding...

This one slipped through Quality Control..:rolleyes:

TheeBadOne
January 6, 2004, 10:58 PM
You can call it an assumption if you like. I base it on:

1) New Years Eve

2) Urinating in Public

3) Text of 18-12-106. Prohibited use of weapons. (What constitutes an offense)


I don't think it's much of a strech (certainly nothing compared to what I'm use to seeing on here, want sources?)

All the best

TBO

FPrice
January 6, 2004, 11:02 PM
"The article doesn't say he was urinating on anyone's lawn."

Never said he was.

"The article doesn't say he was drunk."

Neither did I.

However, in the immortal words of Howie Carr, afternoon radio talk show host on WRKO, Boston, when discussing "unusual" behavior, "Do you think.....alcohol.....may have been involved???".

Art Eatman
January 6, 2004, 11:09 PM
This is way too much arguing over way too little factual information...

Ta, ta.

:), Art

If you enjoyed reading about "Man arrested for carrying 2 concealed handguns" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!