Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Colorado's Preemption Law: Please sticky this.

  1. #1
    Regular Member M-Taliesin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Aurora, Colorado
    Posts
    1,504

    Colorado's Preemption Law: Please sticky this.

    PREEMPTION!!!

    The subject of Colorado statewide preemption comes into question from time to time. As a result, I created this to review the language of preemption so it may be readily accessible for any member for reference purposes.
    -------------------------------------

    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.

    (editorial note: The City and County of Denver are exempted from Preemption at this time. Current court cases now pending in the 10th and 7th district courts may change their status in the near term.)

    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 this like a mantra. Repeat without ceasing....
    PREEMPTION!!!!

    Blessings,
    M-Taliesin
    Last edited by M-Taliesin; 07-31-2012 at 10:20 AM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member acmariner99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Renton, Wa
    Posts
    662
    Preemption is a fine thing, but what concerns me in the light of recent and past events is that cities and counties in parts of Colorado may find a way around it. One city/county already has -- Denver. All it would take is a city to pass an ordinance, take it to court, and have an anti 2A judge uphold the local law on the grounds that somebody already has. Thankfully up here in the Pacific Northwest, the Washington Supreme Court wouldn't even hold a hearing on a Seattle law that violated our very tight preemption statute. Seattle very much wants to go the way of Denver. And with the recent string of unfortunate events in Colorado, I would not be surprised if certain cities or counties tried to get out of preemption as well.

  3. #3
    Regular Member wmodavis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    CO
    Posts
    109
    Good on you for that M-T. That's where it needs to be.

    And AC it is not just a 'fine thing' It's the law here in CO! And we should cease from being hood winked. Carry a copy with you Coloradans!
    Last edited by wmodavis; 07-31-2012 at 01:15 PM.

  4. #4
    Regular Member LoneEchoWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Alamosa,Colorado
    Posts
    285
    Quote Originally Posted by acmariner99 View Post
    Preemption is a fine thing, but what concerns me in the light of recent and past events is that cities and counties in parts of Colorado may find a way around it. One city/county already has -- Denver. All it would take is a city to pass an ordinance, take it to court, and have an anti 2A judge uphold the local law on the grounds that somebody already has. Thankfully up here in the Pacific Northwest, the Washington Supreme Court wouldn't even hold a hearing on a Seattle law that violated our very tight preemption statute. Seattle very much wants to go the way of Denver. And with the recent string of unfortunate events in Colorado, I would not be surprised if certain cities or counties tried to get out of preemption as well.
    Denver basically had the laws in effect before state preemption and therefor in a way "grandfathered" there way in. We are awaiting decision from the 10th circuit court of appeals on the matter, found here: http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...Appeals-Thread Just a question about your Washington supreme court hearing or well not hearing, What did they exactly say? did they say they would not hear it because it has not been through the right "channels" I.E. has not been taken through the correct steps of lower courts thus not hearing it? or did they say specifically that they will not hear it because of state Preemption? and if so could i get a link to that? because as far as I'm aware and IANAL they have many reasons why they will not hear a case what so ever and most of the time it has nothing to do with the Laws its because they don't want to get there hands dirty and make a decision on something that can change the scope of all other laws nation wide. just a thought. Back to topic, Denver is the only city thus far to try to fight this and we are going to fight them tooth and nail to do the right thing and follow our constitution just as every other city in Colorado is doing and has been doing.

    (Oh and Please sticky this thread!)
    Last edited by LoneEchoWolf; 07-31-2012 at 01:24 PM.
    Semper-Fi
    ~Wolf~

    "Sons of the Republic, arise and take a stand!
    Defend the Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land!
    Preserve our great republic and each God-given right,
    And pray to God to keep the torch of freedom burning bright!"
    -Thelen Paulk

  5. #5
    Regular Member acmariner99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Renton, Wa
    Posts
    662
    I hope this stays on topic because Preemption is something the antis here in Washington push against just like in Colorado. What happened in Washington was the City of Seattle tried to enact a ban on firearms in city parks -- a violation of our preemption statute: RCW 9.41.290 found here: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41.290, two lower courts overturned the ban, and the WA state supreme court didn't even look at the decision because the lower courts got it right. They basically laughed and said Seattle was full of it: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...gunban09m.html. Hopefully Colorado can get Denver to honor your apparently very tight preemption statute as well.

  6. #6
    Regular Member LoneEchoWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Alamosa,Colorado
    Posts
    285
    Quote Originally Posted by acmariner99 View Post
    I hope this stays on topic because Preemption is something the antis here in Washington push against just like in Colorado. What happened in Washington was the City of Seattle tried to enact a ban on firearms in city parks -- a violation of our preemption statute: RCW 9.41.290 found here: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41.290, two lower courts overturned the ban, and the WA state supreme court didn't even look at the decision because the lower courts got it right. They basically laughed and said Seattle was full of it: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...gunban09m.html. Hopefully Colorado can get Denver to honor your apparently very tight preemption statute as well.
    That is awesome to hear your supreme court was smart and the other courts upheld your constitution, good to hear someone getting it right! thanks for the links was a good read! and i agree hopefully we can get them to do the right thing, they even have to know its the right thing to get rid of there ban by now. and i truly do hope this stays on topic and we can refer back to it when needed, here in Colorado we get questions daily on certain municipal laws that are still on the books but are not enforced because of State Preemption, but its almost like no one outside a small few even know Colorado has preemption, all the more reason to educate!
    Semper-Fi
    ~Wolf~

    "Sons of the Republic, arise and take a stand!
    Defend the Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land!
    Preserve our great republic and each God-given right,
    And pray to God to keep the torch of freedom burning bright!"
    -Thelen Paulk

  7. #7
    Regular Member acmariner99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Renton, Wa
    Posts
    662
    Perhaps somebody can clarify something for me. One of the previous responses seemed to imply that Denver's restrictions were 'grandfathered' in when preemption passed. OCDO's description of Colorado however states the following:

    "Colorado was once one of our "Gold Star" open carry states. However, Denver filed and won a suit challenging the states excellent preemption law. Consequently, both open carry and unlicensed open car carry in Denver are prohibited. There are reports that other localities are planning to follow suit."

    This tells me that Denver managed to skirt preemption after the law went into effect and other cities/counties are attempting to do the same. So, in the light of recent events in Colorado -- is there a significant risk for the legislature and the courts in CO's more liberal counties to jump at the opportunity to become more like Denver?

  8. #8
    Regular Member LoneEchoWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Alamosa,Colorado
    Posts
    285
    Quote Originally Posted by acmariner99 View Post
    Perhaps somebody can clarify something for me. One of the previous responses seemed to imply that Denver's restrictions were 'grandfathered' in when preemption passed. OCDO's description of Colorado however states the following:

    "Colorado was once one of our "Gold Star" open carry states. However, Denver filed and won a suit challenging the states excellent preemption law. Consequently, both open carry and unlicensed open car carry in Denver are prohibited. There are reports that other localities are planning to follow suit."

    This tells me that Denver managed to skirt preemption after the law went into effect and other cities/counties are attempting to do the same. So, in the light of recent events in Colorado -- is there a significant risk for the legislature and the courts in CO's more liberal counties to jump at the opportunity to become more like Denver?
    hmm thats a good question i know that Gray Peterson filed a suit that was in the end decided that Denver's ban could stay in effect thread here http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...-CO)-MSJ-Filed and that he has a appeal for it which is the case i was referring to earlier which is here http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...Appeals-Thread but i don't see where Denver filed anything. we are currently awaiting the appeals decision on the case and we can take it from there. if someone else can jump in here and help me out a little not the best at explaining some things. but i think that the OCDO wording may be a little wrong if i recall correctly Denver did not file but they did indeed win the suit challenging the ban which is now in appeals. if i remember correctly they used the wording "home rule" instead of "grandfathered" but if someone else can jump in and finish off that be awesome! it does explain the decision in the thread with all the documents attached from the court hearings if you want to give it a read.

    heres another summary of the case http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/in...rson_v._LaCabe

    I guess they did file heres the RMGO breakdown of the case huh i dont know how i spaced that http://www.rmgo.org/2004-news its just a bit down the page. but heres the judgement



    CONCLUSION DECLARATION AND INJUNCTION

    Based on the foregoing conclusions of law, I hereby order as follows:


    1. DRMC 38-117(a), 38-117(f) and 38-118, insofar as these ordinances regulate the carrying of firearms in automobiles without a permit, are preempted by C.R.S. 18-12-204(2)(a), 18-12-214(1)(a) and 18-12-105.6 (2003) to the extent their language is mare restrictive than state e law as described above. These ordinances remain valid and enforceable in all other respects.

    2. DRMC 38-117(b) and 38-118, insofar as these ordinances regulate the open carrying of firearms, remain valid and enforceable by the City and are not preempted by C.R.S. 29-11.7-103 (2003).

    3. DRMC 38-130, concerning assault weapons, remains valid and enforceable by the City and is not preempted by C.R.S. 29-11.7-103 (2003).


    4. DRMC 38-122(b) and (c), prohibiting the sale of Saturday night specials, remains valid and enforceable by the City, and is not preempted by C.R.S. 29*11.7-103 (2003).


    5. DRMC 38-124, insofar as this ordinance prohibits the furnishing of firearms to minors without exceptions, is preempted by C.R.S. 18-12-108.5 (2003).


    6. DRMC 38-131, concerning the safe storage of firearms, remains valid and enforceable by the City and is not preempted by C.R.S. 18-12-108.5 or 29*11.7-103.


    7. DRMC 39-9 prohibiting firearms in parks:



    A. Remains valid and enforceable by the City in regard to all firearms other than concealed handguns carried with a pen-nit, and is not preempted by C.R.S. 29-1 1.7-10 3 (2003)


    B. Is preempted in regard to concealed handguns carried with a permit by C.R.S. 18-12-204(2)(a), 18-12-214(1)(a) and 18-12-105.6 (2003).


    8. Since the State has conceded the continuing validity and enforceability of the following City ordinances and regulations, these ordinances remain valid and enforceable and are not preempted by C.R.S. 29-11.7.103 (2003) or other state statutes:

    A. DRMC 14-92, concerning firearms in vehicles, presumption of possession;

    B. DRMC 38-117(c), concerning the display and flourishing of firearms;

    C. DRMC 38-121, concerning the firing and discharge of weapons;

    D. DRMC 38-123, concerning identification and records of weapons sales;

    E. DRMC 38-124, insofar as this ordinance prohibits the furnishing of firearms to intoxicated persons and others;

    F. DRMC 42-137, concerning the carrying of firearms by licensed security guards,

    G. DRMC 59-80(6)(c)(1), concerning the sale of firearms by licensed dealers in residential zone districts;

    H. Career Service Authority Rules 15-110(A) and 16-50(A)(6), concerning the unauthorized carrying of firearms by City employees; and

    I. Manager of Aviation Rules 20.09 and 20.10, prohibiting firearms in restricted areas of the airport.


    9. The State is and shall be permanently enjoined from enforcing against the City the preemptive language of the statutes adopted or amended by SB 03-24 and SB 03-25, or from otherwise interfering with Denver's enforcement of the City ordinances and regulations set forth above in paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 6, 7A and 8A through 81 on the basis of these statutes.


    10. Any and all claims related to DRMC 38-125 shall be dismissed due to the fact that this ordinance was repealed after the institution of this action by the City.



    SO ORDERED.

    Dated this 5th day of November, 2004.

    So foot in mouth, yes they did file just before the first case against them.
    Last edited by LoneEchoWolf; 07-31-2012 at 06:21 PM.
    Semper-Fi
    ~Wolf~

    "Sons of the Republic, arise and take a stand!
    Defend the Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land!
    Preserve our great republic and each God-given right,
    And pray to God to keep the torch of freedom burning bright!"
    -Thelen Paulk

  9. #9
    Regular Member JamesB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Lakewood, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    703
    Did we still want this stickied?

    Bump.

  10. #10
    Regular Member LoneEchoWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Alamosa,Colorado
    Posts
    285
    Quote Originally Posted by JamesB View Post
    Did we still want this stickied?

    Bump.
    Yes, yes we do!
    Semper-Fi
    ~Wolf~

    "Sons of the Republic, arise and take a stand!
    Defend the Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land!
    Preserve our great republic and each God-given right,
    And pray to God to keep the torch of freedom burning bright!"
    -Thelen Paulk

  11. #11
    Regular Member PikesPeakMtnMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    426
    May I suggest the if this is stickied then any posts not directly related to preemption and its benefits and drawbacks (like Denver) get deleted, so as much as possible it's a non-cluttered, informational thread that people can refer to for factual info and not have to wade through posts like this one.
    One day your life is going to flash before your eyes, make it worth watching.

  12. #12
    Regular Member LoneEchoWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Alamosa,Colorado
    Posts
    285
    Quote Originally Posted by PikesPeakMtnMan View Post
    May I suggest the if this is stickied then any posts not directly related to preemption and its benefits and drawbacks (like Denver) get deleted, so as much as possible it's a non-cluttered, informational thread that people can refer to for factual info and not have to wade through posts like this one.
    agreed, if the mods will or want to they can delete all my posts just leaveing the preemption post by M-T
    Semper-Fi
    ~Wolf~

    "Sons of the Republic, arise and take a stand!
    Defend the Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land!
    Preserve our great republic and each God-given right,
    And pray to God to keep the torch of freedom burning bright!"
    -Thelen Paulk

  13. #13
    Regular Member Kingfish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Atlanta, Georgia, USA
    Posts
    1,276
    1) How does one have the balls to request their own post be a sticky?
    2) If this gets a sticky then other laws need to be as well. Especially those that affect a carrier on a daily basis like the prohibition of carry on "public transportation" which includes but is not limited to the escalator at the mall.
    3) CO does not have a strong preemption law. The ability of a government to ban carry at a "specific location" is just way too ambiguous.
    4) I would much rather see a sticky that shows how weak the preemption law is in CO as compared to other states and suggestions on how to fix it. Florida's new preemption law with teeth would be a great example. Yes, I know there are cases working their way through the system but those do not address all the bad law concerning firearms Denver is allowed to keep enforcing.

  14. #14
    Regular Member LoneEchoWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Alamosa,Colorado
    Posts
    285
    Quote Originally Posted by Kingfish View Post
    1) How does one have the balls to request their own post be a sticky?
    2) If this gets a sticky then other laws need to be as well. Especially those that affect a carrier on a daily basis like the prohibition of carry on "public transportation" which includes but is not limited to the escalator at the mall.
    3) CO does not have a strong preemption law. The ability of a government to ban carry at a "specific location" is just way too ambiguous.
    4) I would much rather see a sticky that shows how weak the preemption law is in CO as compared to other states and suggestions on how to fix it. Florida's new preemption law with teeth would be a great example. Yes, I know there are cases working their way through the system but those do not address all the bad law concerning firearms Denver is allowed to keep enforcing.
    1) we all already discussed making a sticky on our sub forum in regards to this. you were not part of that discussion and therefor have no idea why we would want it sticky. thanks for your time and all but join the conversation before you try to toll another state!

    2) could i get a cite of COLORADO LAW that suggests that a escalator is public transportation? more so could you provide a cite that shows that Escalators are withing the governments jurisdiction? thus being able to ban it?

    3) what are referring to as a "specific location" ban? are referring to them being able to ban from city and state buildings? and "buildings within there jurisdiction?"

    4) Is your problem Denver? because ours is too! don't really understand what Florida's preemption has to do with this thread as we are using this thread to refer back to and educate about COLORADO law.

    don't understand why you would come to our sub forum and nit pick about us asking for a sticky that we all have discussed and agreed was the best way for us to do it. your more than welcome to join in our conversations. if you would like to see a thread that adresses whatever, then post that thread yourself, but please post it in a correct place like general discussion, or may i suggest the great sub forum of the social lounge! and if you were to do that you should weight things like the preemption in a few other states thats far "worse" than ours. one last thing. if your going to be preaching about what preemption is what, could you please give me a link to the state your a resident of preemption law?
    Last edited by LoneEchoWolf; 08-03-2012 at 03:19 PM.
    Semper-Fi
    ~Wolf~

    "Sons of the Republic, arise and take a stand!
    Defend the Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land!
    Preserve our great republic and each God-given right,
    And pray to God to keep the torch of freedom burning bright!"
    -Thelen Paulk

  15. #15
    Regular Member Kingfish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Atlanta, Georgia, USA
    Posts
    1,276
    You might want to study up a little more on Colorado law there Lone...


    Quote Originally Posted by LoneEchoWolf View Post
    1)...before you try to toll another state!
    Yawn

    Quote Originally Posted by LoneEchoWolf View Post
    2) could i get a cite of COLORADO LAW that suggests that a escalator is public transportation? more so could you provide a cite that shows that Escalators are withing the governments jurisdiction? thus being able to ban it?
    18-9-118.
    Firearms, explosives, or incendiary devices in facilities of public transportation.
    A person commits a class 6 felony if, without legal authority, he has any loaded firearm or explosive or incendiary device, as defined in section 9-7-103, C.R.S., in his possession in, or carries, brings, or causes to be carried or brought any of such items into, any facility of public transportation, as defined in section 18-9-115 (4)

    18-9-115
    (3) "Public conveyance" includes a train, airplane, bus, truck, car, boat, tramway, gondola, lift, elevator, escalator, or other device intended, designed, adapted, and used for the public carriage of persons or property.
    (4) "Facility of public transportation" includes a public conveyance and any area, structure, or device which is designed, adapted, and used to support, guide, control, permit, or facilitate the movement, starting, stopping, takeoff, landing, or servicing of a public conveyance or the loading or unloading of passengers or goods.

    Quote Originally Posted by LoneEchoWolf View Post
    3) what are referring to as a "specific location" ban? are referring to them being able to ban from city and state buildings? and "buildings within there jurisdiction?"
    Not just "buildings".
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by LoneEchoWolf View Post
    4) Is your problem Denver? because ours is too! don't really understand what Florida's preemption has to do with this thread as we are using this thread to refer back to and educate about COLORADO law.
    Check out what other states do with preemption. It is relevant. If you do, you will see where Colorado law is lacking. Oh, and preemption law in GA does not allow ANY local laws stricter than state law...This has been upheld by numerous courts just as Washington's has.

  16. #16
    Regular Member Kingfish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Atlanta, Georgia, USA
    Posts
    1,276
    Quote Originally Posted by LoneEchoWolf View Post
    don't understand why you would come to our sub forum...
    First off, punctuation and capitalization are your friends. They will help you make your points.

    YOUR subforum? YOUR? I thought John and Mike owned the whole site. Tell you what, there is a little exclamation point on the lower left corner of this post. Go ahead and report me and tell the admins how much you don't appreciate an outsider coming into YOUR forum making comments.

  17. #17
    Regular Member LoneEchoWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Alamosa,Colorado
    Posts
    285
    Quote Originally Posted by Kingfish View Post
    First off, punctuation and capitalization are your friends. They will help you make your points.

    YOUR subforum? YOUR? I thought John and Mike owned the whole site. Tell you what, there is a little exclamation point on the lower left corner of this post. Go ahead and report me and tell the admins how much you don't appreciate an outsider coming into YOUR forum making comments.
    first off i never said mine, i said our, as in the state of Colorado being we use it most, and no I'm not claiming i own anything, hell i welcomed you to the conversation, without the attitude like your greater than us. as for my grammer, i dont know you, you aint my dad there for, i dont care what you say and you saying anything really doesnt hold weight to me what so ever, you lost all repect right from the get go. still waiting on the GA preemption cite.so i can see how great it is. and does that law count for things outside the governments jurisdiction. hell you sound like a kid I'm not having this discussion with you, and thats my right! have a great day! and i don't appreciate the hostile attitude!

    oh and they do own the site, helped by donations and useing amazon links from the page, by people like me! im sure that helps a great deal on keeping things running
    Last edited by LoneEchoWolf; 08-03-2012 at 04:31 PM.
    Semper-Fi
    ~Wolf~

    "Sons of the Republic, arise and take a stand!
    Defend the Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land!
    Preserve our great republic and each God-given right,
    And pray to God to keep the torch of freedom burning bright!"
    -Thelen Paulk

  18. #18
    Regular Member Kingfish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Atlanta, Georgia, USA
    Posts
    1,276
    Quote Originally Posted by LoneEchoWolf View Post
    still waiting on the GA preemption cite.

    O.C.G.A. 16-11-173
    Legislative findings; preemption of local regulation and lawsuits; exceptions

    (a)(1) It is declared by the General Assembly that the regulation of firearms is properly an issue of general, state-wide concern.

    (2) The General Assembly further declares that the lawful design, marketing, manufacture, and sale of firearms and ammunition to the public is not unreasonably dangerous activity and does not constitute a nuisance per se.
    (b)(1) No county or municipal corporation, by zoning or by ordinance, resolution, or other enactment, shall regulate in any manner gun shows; the possession, ownership, transport, carrying, transfer, sale, purchase, licensing, or registration of firearms or components of firearms; firearms dealers; or dealers in firearms components.

    (2) The authority to bring suit and right to recover against any firearms or ammunition manufacturer, trade association, or dealer by or on behalf of any governmental unit created by or pursuant to an Act of the General Assembly or the Constitution, or any department, agency, or authority thereof, for damages, abatement, or injunctive relief resulting from or relating to the lawful design, manufacture, marketing, or sale of firearms or ammunition to the public shall be reserved exclusively to the state. This paragraph shall not prohibit a political subdivision or local government authority from bringing an action against a firearms or ammunition manufacturer or dealer for breach of contract or express warranty as to firearms or ammunition purchased by the political subdivision or local government authority.

    (c) A county or municipal corporation may regulate the transport, carrying, or possession of firearms by employees of the local unit of government in the course of their employment with such local unit of government.

    (d) Nothing contained in this Code section shall prohibit municipalities or counties, by ordinance, resolution, or other enactment, from requiring the ownership of guns by heads of households within the political subdivision.

    (e) Nothing contained in this Code section shall prohibit municipalities or counties, by ordinance, resolution, or other enactment, from reasonably limiting or prohibiting the discharge of firearms within the boundaries of the municipal corporation or county.

  19. #19
    Regular Member LoneEchoWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Alamosa,Colorado
    Posts
    285
    Quote Originally Posted by Kingfish View Post

    O.C.G.A. 16-11-173
    Legislative findings; preemption of local regulation and lawsuits; exceptions

    (a)(1) It is declared by the General Assembly that the regulation of firearms is properly an issue of general, state-wide concern.

    (2) The General Assembly further declares that the lawful design, marketing, manufacture, and sale of firearms and ammunition to the public is not unreasonably dangerous activity and does not constitute a nuisance per se.
    (b)(1) No county or municipal corporation, by zoning or by ordinance, resolution, or other enactment, shall regulate in any manner gun shows; the possession, ownership, transport, carrying, transfer, sale, purchase, licensing, or registration of firearms or components of firearms; firearms dealers; or dealers in firearms components.

    (2) The authority to bring suit and right to recover against any firearms or ammunition manufacturer, trade association, or dealer by or on behalf of any governmental unit created by or pursuant to an Act of the General Assembly or the Constitution, or any department, agency, or authority thereof, for damages, abatement, or injunctive relief resulting from or relating to the lawful design, manufacture, marketing, or sale of firearms or ammunition to the public shall be reserved exclusively to the state. This paragraph shall not prohibit a political subdivision or local government authority from bringing an action against a firearms or ammunition manufacturer or dealer for breach of contract or express warranty as to firearms or ammunition purchased by the political subdivision or local government authority.

    (c) A county or municipal corporation may regulate the transport, carrying, or possession of firearms by employees of the local unit of government in the course of their employment with such local unit of government.

    (d) Nothing contained in this Code section shall prohibit municipalities or counties, by ordinance, resolution, or other enactment, from requiring the ownership of guns by heads of households within the political subdivision.

    (e) Nothing contained in this Code section shall prohibit municipalities or counties, by ordinance, resolution, or other enactment, from reasonably limiting or prohibiting the discharge of firearms within the boundaries of the municipal corporation or county.
    Sounds pretty tight, good job guys! heres one that i find a little bit iffy its a partial preemption from louisiana, which im hopefully going to be visiting soon! http://www.legis.state.la.us/lss/lss.asp?doc=97860
    Semper-Fi
    ~Wolf~

    "Sons of the Republic, arise and take a stand!
    Defend the Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land!
    Preserve our great republic and each God-given right,
    And pray to God to keep the torch of freedom burning bright!"
    -Thelen Paulk

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Wyoming
    Posts
    1

    Is Denver's ordinance ready to fall after Peruta v San Diego?

    I hoping after this landmark case has been handed down the state of Colorado and it's people now have the precedent to strike down Denver's ban on open carry or Colorado will now have to accept all other state CC permits.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •