Colorado Supreme Court interprets 'straw purchase' law to encompass shared use of guns

[Aim1]

This is an interesting case with big implications.


Thoughts?





https://www.coloradopolitics.com/co...cle_9edc80ba-a654-11ed-823f-0ba3ae6bb6bd.html

 

[rust collector]

It is a valid issue to discuss, but we begin without anything other than a news article referring to the opinion. Consequently we have no factual background and only minimal references to the laws involved.

The opinion, which appears to have been issued July 29, 2021 may be found here: https://law.justia.com/cases/colorado/court-of-appeals/2021/18ca1212.html This involves Colorado statute concerning transfers, possession, straw purchase and other elements that are highly fact dependent and relate only to Colorado citizens and business. If you wish to comment, please read the opinion and analyze what this means for the people of Colorado.

 

[bnolsen]

Lawless politicians and judges in this state don't make it easy for us serfs to obey their laws.

 

[coloradokevin]

Lawless politicians and judges in this state don't make it easy for us serfs to obey their laws.

Twenty years ago this was an amazing state. Now I'm looking for a way out of the place where I once thought I'd live forever. The California of Colorado is complete, and with it will come more extreme interpretations of law. In this instance the ruling doesn't sound like something that will grab many headlines in mainstream media. But, it's a ruling that exposes lawful Colorado gun owners to another avenue through which they could inadvertently become a criminal, even with no intention of wrongdoing.

 

[rust collector]

I am not sure why CO passed its own version of the straw purchase prohibition, separate and apart from the federal law, but no gun for protection of family if accessible by prohibited person.

 

[IlikeSA]

https://www.lawweekcolorado.com/article/court-opinion-colorado-supreme-court-opinion-for-feb-6/

Above is another article about the opinion with more detail. According to it, she knew he was a prohibited person. She went with him to a pawn shop, where she bought the gun. She went home and put it in the closet, then told him where it was. She then told a detective who was investigating she bought it as she was worried for his safety when he was outside the house.

It seems to me if they had gotten a good lawyer that there were several instances of "dont talk to the police" and using your 5th amendment right where this could have been squashed. He ended up taking her down with him, and she kept paddling the sinking ship.

As much as I hate these types of laws, in this case I believe it was applied correctly. He had been convicted of a felony and was currently the on a protection order against both possessing weapons and being where he was, at her place. She was concerned for his safety at her house. He just keeps making bad choices and/or associating with other bad people. The last thing needing to be introduced is a firearm.

 

[hk940]

Years ago (12) NJ had said that simply handing a gun to anyone, while at the range was a transfer! I don't know if still in affect as I left 12 years ago.
Also a friend of mine had his guns taken (he did eventually get them back) because his son had a domestic RO and was living at his fathers house.