Colorado – (I don’t “Rant” to often but this one got my dander up) Got an email about Aurora Colorado and their Ordinances as below. Checking into it no one seems to even know it was on the books. I have been told that Aurora is a City of the 1st Class (Like Denver that has some firearm restrictions) so it is exempt from some of the statutes. Is this in violation of Preemption? Who really knows until a court decides. There are people looking at this Aurora ordinance. The issue with Aurora Ordinances is the exact reason I put on Handgunlaw.us that you shouldn’t go past a No Gun Sign in places not specifically listed as off limits in state statutes. That you inform them and that you will spend your dollars somewhere you and your firearm are welcome. This ordinance specifically mentions “Postings and or Verbally.” This is the Number 1 reason for STATE WIDE PREEMPTION ON ALL FIREARM STATUTES!!!!! No Ands, If or Buts and no cities of the 1st class or any this city is better than that city garbage. There must be statewide Preemption on all gun laws Period!!! https://library.municode.com/c...s/code_of_ordinances
Sec. 94-152. - Firearms on private property.
(a) It shall be unlawful for any person, carrying a firearm, to enter or remain upon any private property of another or any building or property of a commercial establishment when such property, building, or establishment is posted with notification that the carrying of firearms is prohibited.
(b) It shall be unlawful for any person, carrying a firearm, to remain upon any private property of another or any building or property of a commercial establishment after such person has been given verbal notice that the carrying of firearms is prohibited on such property, building, or establishment.
(c) Possession of a permit issued pursuant to C.R.S. 18-12-105.1, as it existed prior to repeal, or possession of a permit or temporary emergency permit issued pursuant to pt. 2 of art. 18 of tit. 9 of the Colorado Revised Statutes shall be no defense to a violation of this section.
Sec. 1-13. – General penalty (These Penalties apply specifically to 94-152)
(i)Every person who pleads guilty or no contest to or is convicted of any violation of article II of chapter 10; article II of chapter 58; article II of chapter 74; articles II, III and IV of chapter 94; divisions 1 through 3 of article V of chapter 94; and article VI of chapter 94 of this Code may be required, by order of the municipal court, to forfeit any weapon and ammunition when such weapon and ammunition was used, possessed or displayed during the course of the criminal episode which gave rise to the conviction, no contest plea or guilty plea or when such weapon and ammunition formed the basis of the complaint. Forfeiture may be an element of sentencing or a condition of probation or deferred judgment.
(1) Title to and ownership of such weapon shall be awarded to the police department upon the attachment of finality of judgment or as soon as possible thereafter. Upon the awarding of title and ownership of such weapon to the police department, the department is authorized to use such weapon for legitimate law enforcement purposes or dispose of it according to ordinance and applicable state law.
(2) Weapons and ammunition subject to forfeiture pursuant to this section shall include but are not limited to weapons and ammunition used, concealed, possessed, displayed or loaned in violation of sections 94-142 through 94-152 of this Code.
Tennessee – though HB2550 isn’t a subject Handgunlaw.us usually covers I thought it was important for everyone to see. HB2550 mandates that the state board of education shall develop academic standards for a comprehensive firearm education course to be offered as an elective in high school. The course shall incorporate history, mathematics, and science related to firearms and firearm safety education as recommended by law enforcement agencies and firearms associations. http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/110/Bill/HB2550.pdf
Utah - The UT Bureau of Criminal ID sent out a letter to all their instructors stating effective July 1, 2018 there will be a decrease for the cost of applicants.
Utah Residents New Total $52 and Non-Resident New Total is $62.
Fingerprint based background checks costs went down. Starting June 1, 2018 BCI will have a new application that reflects these fees changes for download at their website. More info Here: https://bci.utah.gov/concealed-firearm/
BCI has also removed Congregation Kol Ami from the list of Churches in Utah that are off limits. Handgunlaw.us doesn’t know why they were removed but the statute linked below says they have to notify BCI if they want added and Notified to be removed. It looks like they can just post signs on their property also. BCI Listing of churches that are off limits.
Utah Statute 76-10-530. Trespass with a firearm in a house of worship or private residence -- Notice -- Penalty.
Items listed above that are effective immediately will be added to their respective pages at www.handgunlaw.us late this evening or early tomorrow. Those not effective immediately will be added at a later date.
Member Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network.
Good for Tennessee. Education is the first step in safety and protecting our rights.
|Powered by Social Strata|