You may have noticed the Supreme Court in the news last week for its ruling in United States v. Hayes - the briefs, oral argument, Justice Ginsberg's opinion, etc. are at this link. I reviewed this decision and then read some of the news reports and commentary. Wow, any law that involves firearms really gets the commentators fired up. The case involved application of a federal law that, among other things, bans possession of a firearm if a person commits a domestic violence misdemeanor.
In Colorado, the whole issue of banning firearms and domestic violence is a little confusing because the federal law and Colorado state law are different. They overlap, and both apply to persons in Colorado.
For all our sakes, let's skip the legal gumbo, mumbo-jumbo, and jambalaya. Just know this, the Colorado law that bans firearms has a broad reach, and can prohibit the possession, transportation, and ownership of firearms in many circumstances - including when there is no criminal charge filed. In a divorce, the most relevant and common incident where this law reaches is a Civil Protection Order. This type of protection order can be issued when a spouse, or ex-spouse, goes to court, asks for one, and provides good reason to obtain it. Don't need no police. Don't need no prosecutor. If a protection order is issued, after the restrained party has had an opportunity to present their side, the court can impose any condition it feels appropriate to help protect the safety of the alleged victim, including banning ownership and possession of firearms. (Such a civil order may, and can, meet the requirements of the federal law known as the "Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act. Violating the order could be a felony under Federal Law.)
A Civil Protection Order issued in a case can have a substantial effect on a divorce case, well beyond the possession of firearms referred to in this note. But you know that.