People v. Marques

Supreme Court of Colorado

People v. Marques

498 P.2d 929, 179 Colo. 86, 1972 Colo. LEXIS 707

CourtSupreme Court of Colorado

DecidedJune 26, 1972

Docket24828

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 498 P.2d 929 (People v. Marques) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Colorado primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Marques, 498 P.2d 929, 179 Colo. 86, 1972 Colo. LEXIS 707 (Colo. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The defendant-appellant, William Ray Marques, was convicted of the crime of carrying a concealed weapon, after having been previously convicted of the crime of assault with *87 a deadly weapon during the preceding ten years. 1965 Perm. Supp., C.R.S. 1963, 40-11-10(1). On appeal, he challenges the constitutionality of the statute.

One of the arguments raised in this appeal was considered by us and resolved adversely to the defendant-appellant in People v. Trujillo, 178 Colo. 147, 497 P.2d 1, wherein we determined that the statute in question is not subject to constitutional attack under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. U.S. Const, amend. XIV (Fourteenth Amendment). The defendant-appellant’s other claim is that the statute deprives him of his Second Amendment right to bear arms. U.S. Const, amend. II (Second Amendment). This claim is also without merit. United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 59 S.Ct. 816, 83 L.Ed. 1206 (1939); United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 23 L.Ed. 588 (1875); State v. Bolin, 200 Kan. 369, 436 P.2d 978 (1968); Harris v. State, 83 Nev. 404, 432 P.2d 929 (1967).

Therefore, we affirm the judgment.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

The defendant-appellant, William Ray Marques, was convicted of the crime of carrying a concealed weapon, after having been previously convicted of the crime of assault with *87 a deadly weapon during the preceding ten years. 1965 Perm. Supp., C.R.S. 1963, 40-11-10(1). On appeal, he challenges the constitutionality of the statute.

One of the arguments raised in this appeal was considered by us and resolved adversely to the defendant-appellant in People v. Trujillo, 178 Colo. 147, 497 P.2d 1, wherein we determined that the statute in question is not subject to constitutional attack under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. U.S. Const, amend. XIV (Fourteenth Amendment). The defendant-appellant’s other claim is that the statute deprives him of his Second Amendment right to bear arms. U.S. Const, amend. II (Second Amendment). This claim is also without merit. United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 59 S.Ct. 816, 83 L.Ed. 1206 (1939); United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 23 L.Ed. 588 (1875); State v. Bolin, 200 Kan. 369, 436 P.2d 978 (1968); Harris v. State, 83 Nev. 404, 432 P.2d 929 (1967).

Therefore, we affirm the judgment.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

498 P.2d 929, 179 Colo. 86, 1972 Colo. LEXIS 707, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-marques-colo-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack