M-Taliesin
Regular Member
Howdy Folks!
When reviewing the law regarding preemption, we must wonder about the nemesis of the open carrier... Denver!
Before I give my particular perspective on the matter, let's look at the Colorado Revised Statute itself:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
29-11.7-101. Legislative declaration.
(1) The general assembly hereby finds that:
(a) Section 3 of article II of the state constitution, the article referred to as the
state bill of rights, declares that all persons have certain inalienable rights, which
include the right to defend their lives and liberties;
(b) Section 13 of article II of the state constitution protects the fundamental
right of a person to keep and bear arms and implements section 3 of
article II of the state constitution;
(c) The general assembly recognizes a duty to protect and defend the
fundamental civil rights set forth in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this subsection (1);
(d) There exists a widespread inconsistency among jurisdictions within the state
with regard to firearms regulations;
(e) This inconsistency among local government laws regulating lawful firearm
possession and ownership has extraterritorial impact on state citizens and the
general public by subjecting them to criminal and civil penalties in some
jurisdictions for conduct wholly lawful in other jurisdictions;
(f) Inconsistency among local governments of laws regulating the possession and
ownership of firearms results in persons being treated differently under the law
solely on the basis of where they reside, and a person's residence in a particular
county or city or city and county is not a rational classification when it is the basis
for denial of equal treatment under the law;
(g) This inconsistency places citizens in the position of not knowing when they
may be violating the local laws and therefore being unable to avoid violating the
law and becoming subject to criminal and other penalties.
(2) Based on the findings specified in subsection (1) of this section, the general
assembly concludes that:
(a) The regulation of firearms is a matter of statewide concern;
(b) It is necessary to provide statewide laws concerning the possession and
ownership of a firearm to ensure that law-abiding persons are not unfairly placed
in the position of unknowingly committing crimes involving firearms.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Loooking at 1:g above, the most compelling inconsistency, considering the borders of Denver are difficult to discern, and tendrils of their jurisdiction reach out all over the area, it is nearly impossible to know when you may be within Denver's borders. It places an unnecessary burden upon the law abiding citizen to pore over maps and study the most current Atlas to determine with some degree of certainty where such borders exist. In some locations, a particular tendril of Denver may extend into other jurisdictions, be surrounded by another jurisdiction, and very narrow from border to border. While passing through such narrow section of Denver's territory, it may be that a law abiding citizen may inadvertantly violate Denver's laws. As in 2:b above, they would therefore be unfairly placed in a position of unknowingly committing a crime involving a firearm because of Denver's exception from the preemption law per the Meiers decision.
Denver's claim for exception was based (in the Meiers decision) primarly on the urban nature of Denver. However, the majority of Denver's territory is no different than any other jurisdiction in the state with the exception of the downtown area (The Golden Triangle) and the government complex bordering Colfax Avenue. The majority of Denver is comprised of neighborhoods and local businesses that are no different than Colorado Springs, Loveland, Estes Park or Fort Collins, to name a few.
It is my personal opinion that the burden placed upon the average citizen is unfair and inappropriate. Since Denver's claim for exemption was based on the urban nature of Denver, the urban portion of concern being primarily the downtown and government sections of the city, preemption language under the Colorado Revised Statute ought reasonably apply to all of Denver with the exception of that section of Denver that is wholly unique in Colorado. (i.e., the Golden Triangle and Government complex areas.)
It would seem reasonable for the balance of Denver to fall under compliance with state law as stipulated in this Colorado Revised Statute, and the burden placed on Denver to post signage on all thoroughfares leading into the downtown area and government complex only. This removes the burden from the shoulders of the law abiding citizen to keep track of Denver's territory, and places the onus where it rightly belongs, on the city and county of Denver to post specific areas where their exception might be reasonably applied per the Meiers decision.
That's my humble little opinion. I'd be interested in knowing what others think.
Blessings,
M-Taliesin
When reviewing the law regarding preemption, we must wonder about the nemesis of the open carrier... Denver!
Before I give my particular perspective on the matter, let's look at the Colorado Revised Statute itself:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
29-11.7-101. Legislative declaration.
(1) The general assembly hereby finds that:
(a) Section 3 of article II of the state constitution, the article referred to as the
state bill of rights, declares that all persons have certain inalienable rights, which
include the right to defend their lives and liberties;
(b) Section 13 of article II of the state constitution protects the fundamental
right of a person to keep and bear arms and implements section 3 of
article II of the state constitution;
(c) The general assembly recognizes a duty to protect and defend the
fundamental civil rights set forth in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this subsection (1);
(d) There exists a widespread inconsistency among jurisdictions within the state
with regard to firearms regulations;
(e) This inconsistency among local government laws regulating lawful firearm
possession and ownership has extraterritorial impact on state citizens and the
general public by subjecting them to criminal and civil penalties in some
jurisdictions for conduct wholly lawful in other jurisdictions;
(f) Inconsistency among local governments of laws regulating the possession and
ownership of firearms results in persons being treated differently under the law
solely on the basis of where they reside, and a person's residence in a particular
county or city or city and county is not a rational classification when it is the basis
for denial of equal treatment under the law;
(g) This inconsistency places citizens in the position of not knowing when they
may be violating the local laws and therefore being unable to avoid violating the
law and becoming subject to criminal and other penalties.
(2) Based on the findings specified in subsection (1) of this section, the general
assembly concludes that:
(a) The regulation of firearms is a matter of statewide concern;
(b) It is necessary to provide statewide laws concerning the possession and
ownership of a firearm to ensure that law-abiding persons are not unfairly placed
in the position of unknowingly committing crimes involving firearms.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Loooking at 1:g above, the most compelling inconsistency, considering the borders of Denver are difficult to discern, and tendrils of their jurisdiction reach out all over the area, it is nearly impossible to know when you may be within Denver's borders. It places an unnecessary burden upon the law abiding citizen to pore over maps and study the most current Atlas to determine with some degree of certainty where such borders exist. In some locations, a particular tendril of Denver may extend into other jurisdictions, be surrounded by another jurisdiction, and very narrow from border to border. While passing through such narrow section of Denver's territory, it may be that a law abiding citizen may inadvertantly violate Denver's laws. As in 2:b above, they would therefore be unfairly placed in a position of unknowingly committing a crime involving a firearm because of Denver's exception from the preemption law per the Meiers decision.
Denver's claim for exception was based (in the Meiers decision) primarly on the urban nature of Denver. However, the majority of Denver's territory is no different than any other jurisdiction in the state with the exception of the downtown area (The Golden Triangle) and the government complex bordering Colfax Avenue. The majority of Denver is comprised of neighborhoods and local businesses that are no different than Colorado Springs, Loveland, Estes Park or Fort Collins, to name a few.
It is my personal opinion that the burden placed upon the average citizen is unfair and inappropriate. Since Denver's claim for exemption was based on the urban nature of Denver, the urban portion of concern being primarily the downtown and government sections of the city, preemption language under the Colorado Revised Statute ought reasonably apply to all of Denver with the exception of that section of Denver that is wholly unique in Colorado. (i.e., the Golden Triangle and Government complex areas.)
It would seem reasonable for the balance of Denver to fall under compliance with state law as stipulated in this Colorado Revised Statute, and the burden placed on Denver to post signage on all thoroughfares leading into the downtown area and government complex only. This removes the burden from the shoulders of the law abiding citizen to keep track of Denver's territory, and places the onus where it rightly belongs, on the city and county of Denver to post specific areas where their exception might be reasonably applied per the Meiers decision.
That's my humble little opinion. I'd be interested in knowing what others think.
Blessings,
M-Taliesin
