Colorado make my day better law.

[TheSparkens]

Kind of a surprise considering the state of the state.
http://www.9news.com/news/local/arti...?storyid=63848

[Gman]

I got wind of this from the NRA. It appears that it's an attempt at putting 'castle doctrine' in place. I love it! No need to retreat. If you attack me in a place that I'm legally allowed to be, I can shoot first and ask questions later. Someone breaking into my home or vehicle with me in it is assumed to be a threat. The other good point is that the property owner can't be sued.

Did you know about this little nugget?
Legislators consider changes to concealed weapons permit laws

DENVER -- When lawmakers allowed Coloradans to obtain permits for concealed weapons four years ago, part of the package included a statewide database that tracks who gets them.

That database is supposed to expire this year, and at least four bills are floating in the Colorado General Assembly regarding its future.

State Sen. Scott Renfroe, R-Greeley, is carrying a bill that would eliminate the database altogether. Other lawmakers have offered bills to the opposite effect.

Another Republican testified this week about a bill that would extend its life.

State Rep. Al White, R-Winter Park, told the House Judiciary Committee he would try to toe a very fine line with his measure, House Bill 1174.

"I believe this database is an important piece of being able to maintain our concealed-carry permit laws as they have existed," he told the committee shortly before his bill was approved 7-4 Wednesday. It now heads to the full House for consideration; White doesn't have a Senate sponsor yet.

White was the co-sponsor of the original 2003 measure that allowed Coloradans to carry concealed weapons, and he said the pro-gun lobby has labeled him a sellout for his latest bill.

"I'm being portrayed by some members of the gun community as being a communist," he said after the hearing. "I'm getting a lot of negative vituperation."

White said he owns a gun and supports the right of Coloradans to carry concealed ones. But if the database tied to that goes away, he said, many people who supported the original law might turn against it.

That includes the County Sheriffs of Colorado and the Colorado Association of Chiefs of Police.

Weld County Sheriff John Cooke -- whose office is responsible for issuing the permits -- opts not to enter permitees' information into the database. Most counties do use it.

"I don't see the need to put law-abiding citizens in that kind of database," Cooke said. "I am at odds with the Colorado sheriffs."

Our state issues are located here;
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/St...fic.aspx?st=CO

Also, HB 1011, championed by State Representative Cory Gardner (R-63), will be heard next Wednesday, January 31, in the House Judiciary Committee. HB1011, the "Castle Doctrine" self-defense bill, simply states that if a criminal breaks into your home, your occupied vehicle, or your place of business, the victim does not have a “duty to retreat.” The bill also provides protection from criminal prosecution and civil litigation for those who defend themselves from criminal attack.

Please contact your State Representatives at (303) 866-2904, or if outside of Denver, at (800) 811-7647, and urge them to oppose HB 1174 and to support HB 1011.

[pickenup]

Lets help.

The squeeky wheel gets the grease.
Make some noise.

[newracer]

HB1011 is sneaky,

HB1011

It extending the protection to businesses and vehicles but some what strips the protection from the home. Now you have a "reasonable" fear of in danger of serious bodily injury or death. Check out what is lined out. That is what will be removed The old wording left no doubt about the intent of the law.

[HunterCO]

That bill is a joke first off no Sheriff was ever required to enter the names which is why Cook does not and Fred of park county does not. In other words it's a smoke screen nobody had to in the first place some do some don't.

How about a bill that does not permit them to do so period?

[Gman]

How about a bill that does not permit them to do so period?

If they let the database sunset, it will go away and the Sheriffs won't have the option.

newracer, your link no workie. I found the text of the bill. I don't think it's "sneaky" at all. When I lived in TX you could use deadly force if someone entered your home, but there was a catch. You had to state that you feared for your life or bodily harm. With HB 1011, it is assumed that it is reasonable for someone in their homes to fear bodily harm from someone that unlawfully enters your home. You don't have to be explicit in stating your fear nor do you have the burden of identifying the intent of an intruder as in the old law. I can't find the forum tags to identify text that has been struck through, so anything in red is being removed from the exisiting law. All CAPS in words identifies additions to the law.

18-1-704.5. Use of deadly physical force against an intruder.
5 (1) The general assembly hereby recognizes that the citizens of Colorado
6 have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes DWELLINGS,
7 PLACES OF BUSINESS, AND VEHICLES.

The edit of the pertinent info in modifying the old law;

Notwithstanding the provisions of section 18-1-704, any
16 occupant of a dwelling, PLACE OF BUSINESS, OR VEHICLE is justified in
17 using any degree of physical force, including deadly physical force,
18 against another person when that other person has made an unlawful entry
19 into the dwelling, PLACE OF BUSINESS, OR VEHICLE, and when the
20 occupant has a reasonable belief that such other person has committed a
21 crime in the dwelling in addition to the uninvited entry, or is committing
22 or intends to commit a crime against a person or property in addition to
23 the uninvited entry, and when the occupant reasonably believes that such
24 other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against
25 any occupant HOLDS A REASONABLE FEAR THAT THE OTHER PERSON
26 CREATES AN IMMINENT PERIL OF DEATH OR SERIOUS BODILY INJURY TO
27 THE OCCUPANT OR A THIRD PERSON.

The law looks good to me where the burden of proving a "reasonable fear" is no longer required. Please let me know where I'm wrong.

Let's see if this link works;
HOUSE BILL 07-1011--PDF Format

[newracer]

corrected my link

[MuzzleFlash]

I only see one flaw in the "Castle" legislation.

The new law does not entitle the occupant to a presumption in the use of deadly physical force when the occupant is engaged in any crime. At first that sounds OK until you think about it. Why not make the standard a "crime of violence". Otherwise, you could be making a MP3 from your brother's music collection at the time of the invasion and be ineligible for the law's protection. Or you could be speeding 3mph over the limit when attacked by an aggressor and ibe neligible for a presumption under the law when you respond in self defense.

FWIW, Colorado courts have never ruled that one has a duty to retreat before using deadly force to meet deadly force. In fact, they have ruled that there is NO duty to retreat.

Some excerpts from a recent appeal of a 2nd degree murder conviction to the Colorado Supreme Court (People v. Garcia):

"The supreme court also holds that the evidence in this case gives rise to a no-duty to retreat instruction and that the trial court committed reversible error in refusing to give such an instruction to the jury."
....
"The court also held that the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury that Defendant had no duty to retreat before exercising her right to self-defense. Id. at 220. Finally, the court held that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury that one may justifiably use deadly force to prevent a sexual assault."
....
"In Idrogo, 818 P.2d at 754-55, and most recently in People v. Toler, 9 P.3d 341, 347 (Colo. 2000), we reviewed the status of the duty to retreat rule in Colorado and noted that beginning with this court’s decision in Boykin v. People, 22 Colo. 496, 45 P. 419, (1896), Colorado had joined the majority of jurisdictions that had abandoned the common law duty of a victim to retreat before resorting to force to defend against an aggressor. Toler, 9 P.3d at 348; Idrogo, 818 P.2d at 755-56. This principle was expressly adopted by the General Assembly when it adopted the self-defense statute codified in section 18-1-704. Toler, 9 P.3d at 349; see Idrogo, 818 P.2d at 755."

[HunterCO]

How about a bill that does not permit them to do so period?

If they let the database sunset, it will go away and the Sheriffs won't have the option.

Wrong they had no requirement before the "shall issue law" ever passed and many Sheriffs were doing it. There is no requirement as of right now hence why some Sheriffs don't report it.

The current law simply says they must report the amount of permits issued, denied ect. NOTHING in it says they must enter individuals in CBI as being permit holders.

That law is a smoke screen and changes nothing the Sheriffs who choose to enter permit holders will do so. The ones that choose not to will do so it changes nothing.

[SigsRule]

How about a bill that does not permit them to do so period?

If they let the database sunset, it will go away and the Sheriffs won't have the option.

newracer, your link no workie. I found the text of the bill. I don't think it's "sneaky" at all. When I lived in TX you could use deadly force if someone entered your home, but there was a catch. You had to state that you feared for your life or bodily harm. With HB 1011, it is assumed that it is reasonable for someone in their homes to fear bodily harm from someone that unlawfully enters your home. You don't have to be explicit in stating your fear nor do you have the burden of identifying the intent of an intruder as in the old law. I can't find the forum tags to identify text that has been struck through, so anything in red is being removed from the exisiting law. All CAPS in words identifies additions to the law.

18-1-704.5. Use of deadly physical force against an intruder.
5 (1) The general assembly hereby recognizes that the citizens of Colorado
6 have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes DWELLINGS,
7 PLACES OF BUSINESS, AND VEHICLES.

The edit of the pertinent info in modifying the old law;

Notwithstanding the provisions of section 18-1-704, any
16 occupant of a dwelling, PLACE OF BUSINESS, OR VEHICLE is justified in
17 using any degree of physical force, including deadly physical force,
18 against another person when that other person has made an unlawful entry
19 into the dwelling, PLACE OF BUSINESS, OR VEHICLE, and when the
20 occupant has a reasonable belief that such other person has committed a
21 crime in the dwelling in addition to the uninvited entry, or is committing
22 or intends to commit a crime against a person or property in addition to
23 the uninvited entry, and when the occupant reasonably believes that such
24 other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against
25 any occupant HOLDS A REASONABLE FEAR THAT THE OTHER PERSON
26 CREATES AN IMMINENT PERIL OF DEATH OR SERIOUS BODILY INJURY TO
27 THE OCCUPANT OR A THIRD PERSON.

The law looks good to me where the burden of proving a "reasonable fear" is no longer required. Please let me know where I'm wrong.

Let's see if this link works;
HOUSE BILL 07-1011--PDF Format

If the red is being deleted and the CAPS is being added than the revised wording would seem to absolutely require you to prove you had a resonable fear the other person creates an IMMINENT PERIL OF DEATH OR SERIOUS BODILY INJURY ... So a skinny teen aged gang member whom you shot when you caught him inside your DWELLING uninvited shows up in court, dressed nicely and claims they were in the house by mistake and you now have to prove you had a reasonable fear of death or injury whereas before you just had to prove a reasonable belief a crime was being committed or about to. Sounds like a step backwards to me. In the previous case, if they broke in any reasonable person would belive they were about to commit a crime - like stealing something at a minimum. In the new case, now a reasonable person has to fear DEATH or SERIOUS BODILY INJURY. There's a lot of naive sheeple out there who don't recognize evil and would say they wouldn't have been in fear of DEATH or SERIOUS BODILY INJURY. Or am I wrong?