Concealed Carry – 10 suggestions and insights from an experienced lawyer

  

 1. A concealed carry permit is not a license to kill. You have no more right to use a weapon than a person without a CCP. 

 2. Better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6. True, but the criminal and civil legal consequences following a shooting will test that. Once the trigger is pulled, your life will change. 

 3. If you must use your weapon, do so. If not, don’t. Most people carry mobile phones; use that if you can. Otherwise, once you shoot, holster/secure your gun and call 911. You will be recorded (so will your phone calls at jail). Stick to the few basic facts – “I’m calling to report a shooting. The address is ___. Send an ambulance.” Then hang up and wait. 

 4. For your concealed carry gun especially use factory ammunition of the same kind. Don’t mix. Some think mixing ammo makes you look untrained, sloppy, haphazard or even gangster. 

 5. Use the minimal powered round you’re comfortable with, preferably something with “defense” in the description on the box. Of course hollow points are good but know the jury will be told by the prosecution (and/or the plaintiff’s personal injury lawyer) – and the judge will allow – that hollow points are designed to maximize damage. Your jury won’t appreciate that hollow points are sensible self-defense rounds; they will believe that hollow points – or any other ammo designed for greater damage (stopping power) – are evidence that you are a bad person. 

 6. Carry whatever gun you want, but again understand that the jury – likely grossly ignorant of guns and how they work (and brainwashed by the media) - will get to see it and touch it. They will not appreciate its aesthetics or functionality as you do. They will fear it. The judge and court personnel – and the prosecutor - will treat it like its highly radioactive. 

 7. Shoot only as many times as you must, aiming for center of mass. Any shot other than to the front body of the person increases the chance of criminal charges and a civil lawsuit. Definitely no shots to the back or back side of the person. 

 8. Your concealed weapon presumably is not intended to be a battle weapon. Its for an emergency. The less offensive looking the better for you in the event of prosecution or lawsuit. 

 9. If you shoot, you probably will be arrested (at least one of the many law enforcement types responding to the scene will want to arrest you, and that’s all it takes), handcuffed, jailed, stripped, searched, fingerprinted, swabbed, held alone, watched, listened to, and interrogated. Your vehicles and home probably will be searched, as will your phones and computers (they’re looking for evidence the shooting was pre-meditated, i.e. not self-defense). A warrant will issue and all your guns and ammo will be confiscated (why? Because they can). Your spouse, girlfriend, roommates etc. will be questioned (and should politely decline to answer any questions about you). If there’s not enough evidence to charge (in the eyes of law enforcement and/or the prosecutor’s office) you should be released eventually. If charged you may be held without bail, or bail so high you can’t afford it. You then will remain in jail through trial 6 or 8 or 12 months later, the odds of which generally speaking are 70% for conviction. The sentence will carry a mandatory minimum of at least 10 years, give or take, somewhere in a more remote part of Colorado (hopefully). Know that from the moment you are taken into custody, you may not get out for a very long time. An appeal takes years and has about a 25% success rate. You will also be sued. You may win the criminal case and still lose the civil case (the burden of proof is lower). The person you shot – or his family – will try to take every penny you have left (after lawyers of course). Insurance will not cover alleged criminal conduct. 

 10. Beyond contact and identification by law enforcement, politely decline to answer questions. You will be in no condition to think clearly enough to understand and answer questions. Plus, assume they are looking for evidence of a crime – that’s what police do. Tell them you’d like to answer questions but have been told by your lawyer not to. Stick to that and stay silent (other than name, address etc.) “Lawyer” is a magic word to police – they’re taught to leave you alone once they hear it. 

     As a criminal defense lawyer practicing nearly 40 years, I can’t recall a time a client ever talked himself out of criminal charges. Usually its just the opposite. If law enforcement is asking you questions – interrogating you or “just trying to learn what happened” – its because they don’t have enough information to charge you! Don’t do their job for them. They probably don’t care that much about you, your family, your career, your reputation etc. They’re looking to make an arrest. Get an experienced lawyer on board ASAP.

Some musings on the changing Practice of Law

 I started in law school 40 years ago.  Here are some of the changes I've seen.

- Technology changed the economics.  Mobile phones, laptop computers, scanners, cloud storage, virtual meetings - these are way cheaper than buildings in downtown offices close to costly over secure courthouses in congested cities or towns.  Nor do lawyers anymore need such office space for secretaries to type and maintain paper files, or to house law libraries.  Good lawyers can be anywhere, and the smart ones already are.

- A diluting talent pool.  Just like in professional sports, there are only so many really good players.  The more teams, the fewer really good players on each.  Law schools are paid to pump out little lawyers.  Little lawyers become judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, politicians (!) etc.  Add in the idiocy of DEI, and the "best and brightest" are becoming fewer and farther.  One fact that hasn't changed is clients want results.  When things get rough they don't care about claimed race, or sexual preferences/perversions, or pronouns, or any other virtue signaling madness.  Even the wokest of the woke will rather have a winning lawyer than one that checks all the boxes but loses.

- The system is overwhelmed.  Too many laws (many of them really dumb or partisan), too many people (so many of them non-English speakers), and trying to do too much to solve the world's problems via courtrooms (like addiction, domestic strife, neighborly disputes, incivility) clog, slow, choke and greatly cost increase what historically has been a system to resolve recognized substantial legal issues among citizens.  Courtrooms now too often sound like lame therapy sessions.  Whole industries leach off the system, from the prison/jail industry to probation departments to community service agencies to sobriety monitors to treatment providers etc. etc.

- Politics trumps justice.  Especially at higher levels - where one might expect better - judges/justices decide a result based on their politics and then work backwards to justify it (usually with hypocritical, tortured and shallow legal "reasoning").  They follow their feelings, not the law.  This sad development is getting worse, undercutting faith in and hope for what should be a strictly impartial system for Justice.

- Judges won't enforce rules.  Civil and criminal matters have longstanding, tried and true rules governing their process, evidence, pre-trial matters, and trial.  Partly because of their inadequacies, more and more judges (see talent pool dilution above) let slide rule violations.  This makes predicting what will happen in a case (something clients understandably want) much more difficult/impossible.  It increases the time and expense of cases for the same reason.  Judges are quick to complain that lawyers don't follow the rules.  In my experience, it's judges not enforcing the rules (or applying established law) that hurts the system.

"As is" clauses in contracts

The form contracts associated with selling or buying a home (or a vehicle for that matter) usually contain a clause that the sale is "as is."  Generally this means defects not otherwise hidden or disclosed may not give rise to redress after the deal closes.

However, language in the same contracts may undercut the as is clause.  Especially more specific language elsewhere may give rise to a cause of action for failing to tell the other side about known "adverse material facts" - in addition to misrepresentation, nondisclosure, concealment of defects or of course downright fraud.  

The bottom line is that "as is" will not protect in all circumstances and does not immunize from potential costly liability.  

 

Real estate disclosure requirements

     For our real estate agent and broker friends - or anyone thinking to sell or buy - an informative article appeared in the July/August 2024 edition of the Colorado Lawyer, entitled "Disclosure of Adverse Material Facts and Latent Defects in Real Estate Transactions."

     It discusses at length and summarizes disclosure duties connected with real estate transactions in the state, including "adverse material facts" (environmental hazards, zoning violations, structural issues, health risks, etc.) actually known, and "latent defects" (concealed water damage, soil conditions, environmental contamination, (maybe?) lack of building permits, etc.).

     Material issues noted in an inspection report following a failed transaction should be disclosed to buyers and sellers.  There is no duty to conduct independent investigations or verify inspector information.  "Matters of public record" generally are exempt from disclosure requirements. 

     Violations are enforced by the Colorado Real Estate Commission and/or via state court lawsuits seeking money damages claiming nondisclosure or concealment, negligence, and breach of contract, among others.

     Of course, there are numerous exceptions and nuances, and experienced legal advice should be sought for particulars.  Call or email us here at Sanderson Law, P.C., if you'd like help or more information.  We handle cases in Colorado and Wyoming.

Driver's license points suspension

Adult Colorado drivers accumulating 12 points in one or 18 in two years will get up to a one year  suspension notice from the state.  Carefully review CRS 42-2-127 for particulars and exceptions.  

Make sure timely to request the hearing you're entitled to, as you may be eligible for a probationary license, or a shorter suspension.  Last checked the phone number was 303-205-5606.

Also, because the rules and statutes change often, you never know what may come out of the hearing.  Have your lawyer attend with you.  Most everything with DMV is virtual, including the hearings.

The hearing officer may ask you questions under oath so be prepared, including whether you've been driving when you weren't supposed to be.  The hearing officer is looking for aggravating and mitigating factors to determine the suspension and terms.  Good behavior, completing requirements, and employment, education and health needs, usually are relevant.

The hearing officer will send out a written order, which is appealable.

 

Unanimously rejected. What does it mean?

Richard Gabriel, Melissa Hart, William Hood, Monica Marquez.  These are the four Colorado supreme court judges who, on the eve of Christmas 2023, nearly excluded millions of Colorado voters - and jolted the 2024 election process - by deciding to exclude the leading candidate from the upcoming presidential ballot.  Recognizing the obvious threat to democracy, a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court swiftly reversed and rejected that effort.  See Trump v. Anderson, decided 3/4/24.

A unanimous and unusually quick decision from the nation's politically diverse highest court might suggest one of two things:  Either the Colorado judges are not very smart lawyers OR they acted from biased political motives.  I suppose it could be both.  For sure the U.S. Supreme Court's swift action confirms the four Colorado judges made a BIG and DANGEROUS mistake.  

Confidence in Colorado's highest court - as currently comprised - is damaged beyond repair.  Why?  Who wants judges that act out of ignorance or bias, especially the state's highest judges?  If they just didn't understand what they were doing, or overlooked legal authority to the contrary (or not existing), or mistakenly read the law, or ignored the potential huge negative consequences of their decision, they probably are not the best qualified for the job.  

If they had doubts about whether precedent adequately supported their democracy threatening decision (remember three of the judges on the same court loudly dissented), or just weren't sure if it was the right decision, they should have erred on the side of NOT disenfranchising millions of voters!  

If they decided the case to keep a candidate they dislike from being elected, they're not impartially deciding cases on the merits, as normally required.  The lady holding the scales of justice is blindfolded for a reason!  These judges are supposed to uphold our constitutional rights, our democracy, and otherwise protect life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, regardless of politics.

Every year thousands of folks in Colorado ask this same Colorado high court to review their case.  Many of these folks unjustly languish in prison, have had children taken away, face devastating judgments, or seek relief from other horrendous consequences.  The court accepts roughly less than 10% to review (and then reverses nearly half of them).  The U.S. Supreme Court faces even more pressures and demands from people in need.  Why did these four Colorado judges decide this case so badly?  Even the most liberal justices on the U.S. court joined in as if to say "duh!" in stopping the Colorado court.

The Colorado court's decision, threatening the very basis of democracy - the right of the People (not a few judges!) to pick their government - will be a longtime embarrassment to many Coloradoans including those practicing law in the state.  Hopefully, if they don't resign before then (the truly honorable thing to do), Colorado voters will send these four - Gabriel, Hart, Hood & Marquez - back to a more private practice of the law.

Politics trumps justice?

             The unsigned decision disqualifying Trump from Colorado’s 2024 ballot confirms what experienced litigants know – politics often trumps justice. 

Whether you like Trump or not, the contentious 4-3 decision rests on weak factual grounds, shaky legal theory, and no compelling authority, and warrants anticipated closer review by the U.S. Supreme Court (which the decision's majority seems to dare).  

Three of the court’s seven judges (usually called justices at the supreme court level) dissented, that is, disagreed formally (and vehemently and at length), including its chief justice.  In sum, they object to the lack of required due process.  It was like using traffic court to convict for murder.  Excerpts follow:

“My opinion that [the case against Trump should have been dismissed] is dictated by the facts … particularly the absence of a criminal conviction ...  The questions presented here simply reach a magnitude of complexity not contemplated by the Colorado General Assembly for its election code enforcement statute. The proceedings below ran counter to the letter and spirit of the statutory timeframe because the [claim against Trump] overwhelmed the process. In the absence of an insurrection-related conviction, I would hold that a request to disqualify a candidate under Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment is not a proper cause of action ….”  Chief Justice Boatright

“I have been involved in the justice system for thirty-three years now, and what took place here doesn’t resemble anything I’ve seen in a courtroom. In my experience, in our adversarial system of justice, parties are always allowed to conduct discovery [i.e. learn ahead of time about each other’s claims and evidence], subpoena documents and compel witnesses, and adequately prepare for trial, and experts are never permitted to usurp the role of the judge by opining on how the law should be interpreted and applied. …  [H]ow can we expect Coloradans to embrace this outcome as fair?”  Justice Samour

“Setting aside the factual questions, an insurrection challenge is necessarily going to involve complex legal questions of the type that no district court—no matter how hard working—could resolve in a summary proceeding.  And that’s to say nothing of the appellate deadline. Three days to appeal a district court’s order regarding a challenge to a candidate’s age? Sure. But a challenge to whether a former President engaged in insurrection by inciting a mob to breach the Capitol and prevent the peaceful transfer of power? I am not convinced this is what the General Assembly had in mind.”  Justice Berkenkotter

Sadly, the one judge majority apparently lacked the courage or courtesy to have its author sign the decision, dodging 2 million plus Colorado Trump voters.  In other words, one unknown judge disenfranchised all those folks.  This is even more stunning given this bench's recent public infatuation with so called Diversity Equity and Inclusion. 

Democracy doesn't work like that, and should be remembered next time all 4 majority justices - Richard Gabriel, Melissa Hart, Monica Marquez, William Hood - are up for re-election/retention.

The case is Anderson v. Griswold, 23SA300, 2023 CO 63 (12/19/23).