Torquemaster69
Regular Member
It was brought to my attention by my dad about OC in Castle Rock. City Ordinance 9-04.165 says that there is a OC BAN......can anyone confirm this?
-
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.
Castle Rock M&G question for OC
- Thread starter Torquemaster69
- Start date
- Status
Bellum_Intus
Regular Member
*facedesk*
Preemption... preemption... besides, we'll be on private property....
--Rob
Torquemaster69
Regular Member
Yeah....I meant Franktown
Bellum_Intus
Regular Member
We'll be fine.. =)
Would I let you OC anywhere that'd get you in trouble?
--Rob
Torquemaster69
Regular Member
I'm just one of those that if I hear about something that I don't expect.....I want confirmation on whether it is true or not. ROFL....call it my Army training
lucky256
Regular Member
You could always hire a lawyer...
M-Taliesin
Regular Member
PREEMPTION!!!
The whole subject of various municipal codes is IRRELEVANT!!!!!
How many times must it be said..... the LAW is PREEMPTION!
Nothing else matters, when the question has already been answered repeatedly.
Once more.... with feelings!!!! Hopefully it won't need to be posted in every single thread!!!
CRS 29-11.7-103. Regulation - type of firearm - prohibited.
A local government may not enact an ordinance, regulation, or other law that prohibits the sale, purchase, or possession of a firearm that a person may lawfully sell, purchase, or possess under state or federal law. Any such ordinance, regulation, or other law enacted by a local government prior to March 18, 2003, is void and unenforceable.
And:
29-11.7-101. Legislative declaration.
(1) The general assembly hereby finds that:
...
(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;
...
(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;
...
(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.
29-11.7-104. Regulation - carrying - posting.
A local government may enact an ordinance, regulation, or other law that prohibits the open carrying of a firearm in a building or specific area within the local government's jurisdiction. If a local government enacts an ordinance, regulation, or other law that prohibits the open carrying of a firearm in a building or specific area, the local government shall post signs at the public entrances to the building or specific area informing persons that the open carrying of firearms is prohibited in the building or specific area.
Now, practice your new mantra. Repeat without ceasing....
PREEMPTION!!!!
Blessings,
M-Taliesin
PikesPeakMtnMan
Regular Member
M, I feel EXACTLY like you do...but we must be tolerant of the newbies who come here seeking advice. If we weren't rehashing old topics over and over ad nasuem then we'd have a pretty quiet forum. I know you know this...but this happens on every single forum there is, regardless of topic. My motorcycle forums, for example, are constantly telling new people to use the search function because there are already hundreds of threads covering the exactt question just asked.
We're going to have another newbie tomorrow asking if it's okay to OC in such-and-such a town or if a particular sign is valid...and we'll answer him respectfully...as well as the next one after than, and the next, and the next, and the....
We're going to have another newbie tomorrow asking if it's okay to OC in such-and-such a town or if a particular sign is valid...and we'll answer him respectfully...as well as the next one after than, and the next, and the next, and the....
M-Taliesin
Regular Member
Howdy PPMM!
That ain't preciseley the point.
When we answer the same question, for the same people, repeatedly, only to see continued posting of municipal codes, it gets pretty pointless to give the correct answer at all, if it only goes ignored.
There are people on the forum who are asking questions. I don't have a problem with that. When the question is answered, but ignored, and answered again, and ignored, it starts to feel more like an attention mechanism than an actual request for information.
I am not pointing my finger at any specific individual. I've seen the same question repeatedly from specific individuals who just can't seem to accept the right answer.
When that happens, yeah, I get frustrated. I would like to do more positive work than rehash the same material over and over for the same questioner.
Blessings,
M-Taliesin
Wolfstanus
Regular Member
Copied and pasted into cellphone notes. Thanks M
Now to eat some NICE cookies. Nom Nom Nom Nom.
Now to eat some NICE cookies. Nom Nom Nom Nom.
M-Taliesin
Regular Member
Howdy Amigo!
Hey now... it's bad enough I have birthday cake to ruin my girlish figure.
Blessings,
M-Taliesin
Wolfstanus
Regular Member
That's why they invented slim fast. So you can eat a stake dinner and not even worry about gaining weight.
That's how it works right?
That's how it works right?
M-Taliesin
Regular Member
M-Taliesin
Regular Member
Howdy Folks!
The Colorado Revised Statutes is the scheme of laws that, when violated by a citizen, result in arrest and a trip to jail.
Here we are talking about a violation of a citizen's right by sworn officers who arrested him for no such violation of Colorado Revised Statutes.
Meanwhile, the arresting officers violated Colorado Revised Statutes:
CRS 29-11.7-103. Regulation - type of firearm - prohibited.
A local government may not enact an ordinance, regulation, or other law that prohibits the sale, purchase, or possession of a firearm that a person may lawfully sell, purchase, or possess under state or federal law. Any such ordinance, regulation, or other law enacted by a local government prior to March 18, 2003, is void and unenforceable.
Yes, they can be sued... if the citizen who had his rights violated has pockets deep enough to file suit.
Why is it not also a criminal liability issue as well?
If cops can put an innocent citizen in jail who has not violated Colorado Revised Statutes,
Why is it citizens cannot cause the cops who did violate Colorado Revised Statutes to walk free without jail time?
Something is wrong here, and I believe may need addressed with a ballot issue to fix it.
Blessings,
M-Taliesin
The Colorado Revised Statutes is the scheme of laws that, when violated by a citizen, result in arrest and a trip to jail.
Here we are talking about a violation of a citizen's right by sworn officers who arrested him for no such violation of Colorado Revised Statutes.
Meanwhile, the arresting officers violated Colorado Revised Statutes:
CRS 29-11.7-103. Regulation - type of firearm - prohibited.
A local government may not enact an ordinance, regulation, or other law that prohibits the sale, purchase, or possession of a firearm that a person may lawfully sell, purchase, or possess under state or federal law. Any such ordinance, regulation, or other law enacted by a local government prior to March 18, 2003, is void and unenforceable.
Yes, they can be sued... if the citizen who had his rights violated has pockets deep enough to file suit.
Why is it not also a criminal liability issue as well?
If cops can put an innocent citizen in jail who has not violated Colorado Revised Statutes,
Why is it citizens cannot cause the cops who did violate Colorado Revised Statutes to walk free without jail time?
Something is wrong here, and I believe may need addressed with a ballot issue to fix it.
Blessings,
M-Taliesin
Last edited:
O2HeN2
Regular Member
Because if you read the preemption law (for example), nowhere does it state "A violation will be a class III <whatever>, punishable by a maximum jail sentence of <whatever>".
This, in my opinion, is one problem with current legislation aimed at governments -- legislation aimed at you and me carries fines and/or jail time. Legislation aimed at governments, well, they seem to always seem to forget the punishment part...
O2
zach
Regular Member
I've never had anyone say anything to me other than "Is that a 1911"?
No worries.
No worries.
I was searching for info about Castle Rock, and came across this thread.
I seriously don't understand why this is a black and white issue. Why?
Denver won its lawsuit. Preemption failed.
- Status