Colorado Universal Background Check Law.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Trunk Monkey

member
Joined
Dec 25, 2011
Messages
4,120
Location
Colorado
My current primary carry gun is a Glock 19. When we bought it my wife filled out the paperwork and we didn't give it any thought because Colorado is a joint property state and as far as we're concerned it's not her's or mine it's our's.

I'm not legally prohibited from owning a handgun and I have a concealed handgun permit so I'm legal to carry I am just wondering if I'm accidentally violating Colorado Universal background check law by carrying what is officially my wife's gun.

As a side note the gun was purchased after the UBC law went into effect
 
I think you'd probably be on safe legal footing.
Your wife obtained the gun legally in her name, but that process involved the initial purchase of the gun.
Now, Colorado does not require registration of her gun (see CRS 29-11.7-102) so after the legal purchase, the gun is not actually registered to her even though she is the legal owner.
You are not violating the universal background check law if she gives you the gun, in that the new law exempts from the background check requirement a bona fide gift between immediate family members; (see HB 13-1229) and you've already stated you are good to go with your ccw permit, so you're also in compliance with Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-12-111 (you're not prohibited from possessing, so the transfer is valid)

As to the joint ownership of the gun, that's actually a property issue for divorce and estate lawyers to hammer out.
From a CCW perspective, you're probably good to go. I would still inquire with LE or a qualified 2A attorney if you want to be 100% certain.
 
I have no idea how "UBC" can be enforced. Yes I know it is more about feeling good about doing something than any thing else.
Or is this just another law to break that the DA can get the prosecuted to plea-deal on?
 
I have no idea how "UBC" can be enforced. Yes I know it is more about feeling good about doing something than any thing else.
Or is this just another law to break that the DA can get the prosecuted to plea-deal on?
Thanks for your response it's really helping me to understand how Colorado's law applies to me
 
I have no idea how "UBC" can be enforced. Yes I know it is more about feeling good about doing something than any thing else.
Or is this just another law to break that the DA can get the prosecuted to plea-deal on?

It really can't. Not without registration, which is, of course, the goal.

Noncompliance is sky high. Friends and friends of friends still buy & sell privately without BGC every day. But it has made people leery of getting caught in a sting buying from or selling to someone they don't know from Adam.
 
The original versions of the law would have required a BC to transfer all of your guns to your spouse if you went out of town for more than 72 hours, then a BC when you came home. Even people you support the concept of a UBC realized that was stupid.
 
Last edited:
I have no idea how "UBC" can be enforced.

UBC can be enforced very simply. I get pulled over, under Colorado law the cop is permitted to disarm me for the duration of the stop. Well he's got me disarmed he runs the serial number for the gun that I'm carrying and finds out that my wife filled out the 4473 AFTER the UBC law went into effect.

She didn't fill it out FOR me and she didn't gift me the firearm. It just became a situation where I was taking it out of the safe more often than my M&P and it became "my" gun.

I mean the simple solution is to do a transfer but why spend money I don't need to.
 
On the 4473, I think your're referring to question 11a, where she likely stated that she was buying the gun for herself, which was true at the time of her legitimate purchase (it's a check against straw purchases)
In Colorado, as a spouse, you wouldn't need to do a formal transfer (as mentioned above, there is also no registration requirement).
Spouses are exempt from the formal FFL transfer requirement. And as also mentioned above, you are not statutorily prohibited from taking possession.
Under the statue above, she does not have to formally "gift" you the gun, a loan to a spouse is also covered. It can be as simple as saying over the breakfast table 'here honey, it's yours', she may have to attest later that she actually said that.
So in the event you got stopped and the officer looked up the 4473, the information on it would be irrelevant - provided the circumstances we are discussing here are still in play.
 
On the 4473, I think your're referring to question 11a, where she likely stated that she was buying the gun for herself, which was true at the time of her legitimate purchase (it's a check against straw purchases)

I hadn't actually looked at the law and I wasn't aware of the exemption for spouses. My concern was if she was original purchaser of that gun after that law went into effect the way the law was originally written I shouldn't be in possession of that firearm without a 4473 in my name.

To be perfectly honest I have no idea what she put on the 4473 because the gun shop where we bought that gun is right next to my favorite bookstore and while she was filling out paperwork I was next door looking for a biography of Robert E Lee.
 
To be perfectly honest I have no idea what she put on the 4473
She answered "Yes" to question 11a, because if she didn't, she was admitting to a felony straw purchase and the FFL would have stopped the sale. At that point they would have either asked her to leave the store or they would have allowed her to correct her mistake (depending on if they believed it was an honest mistake and also depending on store policy). That is, unless they didn't catch the mistake.
 
UBC can be enforced very simply. I get pulled over, under Colorado law the cop is permitted to disarm me for the duration of the stop. Well he's got me disarmed he runs the serial number for the gun that I'm carrying and finds out that my wife filled out the 4473 AFTER the UBC law went into effect.

She didn't fill it out FOR me and she didn't gift me the firearm. It just became a situation where I was taking it out of the safe more often than my M&P and it became "my" gun.

I mean the simple solution is to do a transfer but why spend money I don't need to.

No database exists, no way he could find that out unless he managed to convince a judge to subpoena every 4473 from every FFL in the state and then went through them one by one. Not happening, no way no how.

Also, if you'd paid attention to my post above, immediate family is exempt anyway.
 
Last edited:
I hadn't actually looked at the law and I wasn't aware of the exemption for spouses. My concern was if she was original purchaser of that gun after that law went into effect the way the law was originally written I shouldn't be in possession of that firearm without a 4473 in my name.

To be perfectly honest I have no idea what she put on the 4473 because the gun shop where we bought that gun is right next to my favorite bookstore and while she was filling out paperwork I was next door looking for a biography of Robert E Lee.
You are incorrect in that assumption and worrying needlessly. Do not overthink this.
 
Having a police officer getting your 4473 info while you are pulled over isn't going to happen. First of all, the officer's department will have to submit a trace request to the BATF National Tracing Center. Then the Tracing center contacts the firearm manufacturer/importer to determine where they sold that firearm and the date. If it was transferred to a distributor, BATF contacts the distributor to determine who and when they transferred it. When they determine what dealer it was transferred to, that dealer has, if I recall, 24 hours to give BATF the information from the 4473 showing who the original buyer was. If everyone connected with that firearm spent as little as an hour digging through their records and all of them were open for business you'll be parked for quite some time.
 
And that only applies to guns that were transferred through a FFL/4473. I own a lot of guns that were sold/transferred (legally) face to face with nothing more than a handshake
 
Having a police officer getting your 4473 info while you are pulled over isn't going to happen. First of all, the officer's department will have to submit a trace request to the BATF National Tracing Center. .

Not to mention that ATF is gonna do little more than laugh at a crime gun trace request for a weapon that is ostensibly legally owned just because the officer wants to make sure that it was transferred in accordance with a state law. And all that for a misdemeanor.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top