-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Colo. Gun Law Going Before Federal Appeals Court
- Thread starter Polynikes
- Start date
JamesB
Regular Member
Saw this myself this morning. This is the Peterson v LaCabe case (now Person v Garcia) that is stickyfied at the top of the Colorado page.
Oral arguements are at 2 o'clock this afternoon. I have the day off and just might have to go down and watch.
Oral arguements are at 2 o'clock this afternoon. I have the day off and just might have to go down and watch.
M-Taliesin
Regular Member
Howdy Folks!
Anybody show up there today to hear the story? Any updates on how things went?
Blessings,
M-Taliesin
Anybody show up there today to hear the story? Any updates on how things went?
Blessings,
M-Taliesin
JamesB
Regular Member
Ok, yes I went. It went well as far as I could tell.
The judges are still not happy about the way the question before them is phrased. They would REALLY prefer to simply strike down the Denver OC ban. But that is not one of the options they have.
I think this is going to eventually end up in the W collum, but I think that it's going to be interesting to see how it gets there.
That's the plus and minus of our system. Judges may be the ultimate say in interpreting what the constitution says, but even if something is clearly a majority public opinion, they can't change what it says nor otherwise legislate from the bench. They can't even strike something down until someone questions it.
The what?
rushcreek2
Regular Member
Listening to the original oral arguments - I shared in the justice's confusion as to what it was that the plaintiff is seeking in remedy.
My own take is that plaintiff is seeking some clarification post- Heller/McDonald that the affirmed individual right to bear arms in case of confrontation protected by the 2A - EXTENDS BEYOND THE HOME.
Plaintiff seeks a ruling that since the totality of Colorado law supports his right to carry a handgun openly in defense of his person in that State WITHOUT A PERMIT, Denver Metro/County has effectively denied him the free exercise of this right within said jurisdiction by requiring him to possess a valid permit to carry a CONCEALED handgun in order to even carry an UNCONCEALED handgun which is his right under Colorado law.
Since plaintiff is a resident of Washington State he is ineligible for any such permit while visiting Colorado. Thus the Denver requirement effectively denies plaintiff the free exercise of his right to bear arms under both U.S., and Colorado law.
It Sounds like plaintiff seeks a ruling holding the Denver ordinance unconstitutional under the privileges & immunities clause of the 14A, but the actual goal seems to be the extension of the Heller/McDonald decisions outside of the home.
It still seems to be a challenge of the Denver ordinance, even though plaintiff's attorney keeps insisting that is not the remedy sought.
The only remedy I can envision is this case going to the SCOTUS for clarification of the right to carry the "quintessential handgun" in case of confrontation - even outside of one's home.
My own take is that plaintiff is seeking some clarification post- Heller/McDonald that the affirmed individual right to bear arms in case of confrontation protected by the 2A - EXTENDS BEYOND THE HOME.
Plaintiff seeks a ruling that since the totality of Colorado law supports his right to carry a handgun openly in defense of his person in that State WITHOUT A PERMIT, Denver Metro/County has effectively denied him the free exercise of this right within said jurisdiction by requiring him to possess a valid permit to carry a CONCEALED handgun in order to even carry an UNCONCEALED handgun which is his right under Colorado law.
Since plaintiff is a resident of Washington State he is ineligible for any such permit while visiting Colorado. Thus the Denver requirement effectively denies plaintiff the free exercise of his right to bear arms under both U.S., and Colorado law.
It Sounds like plaintiff seeks a ruling holding the Denver ordinance unconstitutional under the privileges & immunities clause of the 14A, but the actual goal seems to be the extension of the Heller/McDonald decisions outside of the home.
It still seems to be a challenge of the Denver ordinance, even though plaintiff's attorney keeps insisting that is not the remedy sought.
The only remedy I can envision is this case going to the SCOTUS for clarification of the right to carry the "quintessential handgun" in case of confrontation - even outside of one's home.
Last edited:
JamesB
Regular Member
In a nutshell, Rush you are right.
The way this is so screwed up, is that if he had chalenged the Denver ordinance, it would have fallen. Instead he chalanges the state law, forcing the issue to an outside the home ruling.
The way this is so screwed up, is that if he had chalenged the Denver ordinance, it would have fallen. Instead he chalanges the state law, forcing the issue to an outside the home ruling.
rushcreek2
Regular Member
Perhaps the obscurity in the complaint is by design and intended to ensure failure in the 10th Circuit in order to seek clarification from the SCOTUS regarding the Heller/McDonald "in the home" issue.
That's what it sounds like to me - Alan Gura wants to argue before the SCOTUS "privileges & immunities" under the 14A automatically extending the 2A right beyond one's home. Achieving that goal would pretty much knee-cap Denver due to the protection afforded Petersen's right under the totality of Colorado law, and the 2A preempting Denver's "home rule" prerogatives.
That's what it sounds like to me - Alan Gura wants to argue before the SCOTUS "privileges & immunities" under the 14A automatically extending the 2A right beyond one's home. Achieving that goal would pretty much knee-cap Denver due to the protection afforded Petersen's right under the totality of Colorado law, and the 2A preempting Denver's "home rule" prerogatives.
Last edited:
JamesB
Regular Member
That is entirely possible and would not surprise me at all. I know that a large portion of the arguement focused on "keep and bear" as in:
keep= to own or posess
bear= to carry, to hold or to have immediately available
keep= to own or posess
bear= to carry, to hold or to have immediately available
bogidu
Guest
Confused.
Ok, from the conversation I'm just guessing that the KKTV article really has nothing to do with what the case is about? The article seems to indicate that it's a ccw permit reciprocity issue and the fact that it doesn't exist between Colorado and Washington and that Colorado does not issue non-resident permits?
Ok, from the conversation I'm just guessing that the KKTV article really has nothing to do with what the case is about? The article seems to indicate that it's a ccw permit reciprocity issue and the fact that it doesn't exist between Colorado and Washington and that Colorado does not issue non-resident permits?
Gray Peterson
Founder's Club Member - Moderator
We challenged Denver's enforcement of the state law given their open carry prohibition. The enforcement of the licensing scheme (the denier of the license) and the law enforcement of the open carry prohibition (which a CHL exempts you from according to the state AG's representation to the appeals court) is unified in the official capacity of one person, the Manager of Public Safety.
That's why we sued LaCabe, who retired & then after numerous cases of musical chairs, became Alex Martinez.