It is irrelevant to Denver. It is irrelevant to cities who ban carry in public buildings. It is irrelevant to cities who think they can ban carry in ALL parks and open spaces. It is irrelevant to the state legislature when they ban carry on public transportation (that includes elevators), carry while "under the influence" (whatever that means) and a few others I am leaving out.
Howdy Kingfish!
You are right about specific exceptions indicated above, and until those are challenged in some manner before a court of law, they'll be taken at face value. Be that as it may, the incident under consideration didn't happen in Denver, nor a public building where such bans are in place, nor parks or open spaces, etc.
That being said, I get your point and acknowledge specific examples of exceptions; none of which apply to whether their former LEO security guy gave correct information, which he did not.
My suggestion would be to take a writeup on OC laws...This may very well include a summary of the constitution(s). Just carrying the constitution(s) and saying...I HAVE THE RIGHT is not going to do a damn bit of good.
As I mentioned earlier, there are no CRS that give specific endorsement so clearly as Article 2, section 13 of the Colorado Constitution. As the Constitution of the United States in general, and the Colorado Constitution in particular, any laws must conform to those fundamental documents. While many are passed that are contrary to those fundamental documents, they face being struck down in courts that look to those foundation documents to whether the law itself passes constitutional muster.
We had a law passed in Colorado... actually it was a Constitutional Amendment, the infamous Amendment 2; basically stipulated that gay, lesbian and bisexual folks had no rights at all. It paved the way for any employer to fire a person based on their identity as GLBT type folks, and also stipulated they could be denied housing or other basic rights as citizens of our state. The case was heard in district court and found unconstitutional. It was taken up to the Colorado Supreme Court, and again, found unconstitutional. Eventually it landed at SCOTUS and finally ended there.
The point isn't to make a federal case out of anything, and I don't really expect anybody to challenge banning open carry in the courts all the way to the Colorado Supreme Court; which would be costly and time consuming. I'd be of the opinion that if that should happen, the law might face defeat there, but that's another topic.
In reference to this specific case, with this specific set of details, and in particular, the specific former LEO who believed OC to be illegal, this particular section 13 makes abundantly clear that he is wrong in his belief. By undermining the sole source of reference upon which the manager on duty relied in 86'ing our fellow OC'er, their reason for ousting him from their store collapses. Taken together with their corporate policy to abide by local law as pertains to carry, it becomes salient. As there is no CRS that speaks directly to open carry being legal, the language of section 13 makes clear that it is his right. Whether the business in question 'must' adhere to the right of the individual is another question altogether. But it does set precedent for them to adhere to corporate policy, and gives them a specific source of verbage to review their reliance on the former LEO as a source of whether the person removed from their location was acting within the law or in violation. In one instance, they have justification to support their decision, in the other, not so much.
Again, I am not a lawyer, but would believe the language of section 13 is unknown to most Coloradoans, and when relied upon, speaks clearly enough about the right of a citizen to open carry. Colorado laws do not state anywhere I am aware that open carry is legal. They speak to what is not legal, as a general rule. The exception being the so called "make my day" law, that specifically states that somebody who shoots an intruder (within defined parameters) is immune to criminal or civil prosecution. Despite the law making that statement in unambiguous terms, those who have invoked it still (nevertheless) endured prosecution attempts to bring charges against them. In other words, specific laws (not unlike Constitutional Articles) can be ignored by ambitious folks looking to nail somebody for what they (in their opinion) regard as a violation.
In this case, we have a former LEO who advanced an opinion that the management relied upon in their decision to boot a citizen from their store.
The best evidence in the clearest language that they should not have taken the opinion as gospel would be section 13.
If anybody knows of any CRS that states we have legal grounds for Open Carry, please post it so we may all benefit.
Thanks in advance,
Blessings,
M-Taliesin