Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 30

Thread: City of Lafayette municipal code

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Larimer County, CO
    Posts
    212

    City of Lafayette municipal code

    Seems to me this would violate preemption:

    Sec. 75-49. Open carry/concealed weapons prohibited
    (1)It shall be unlawful for any person to carry, wear about their person or under their clothes, or concealed about their person, any firearm, handgun or mechanical gun.

    Source

  2. #2
    Regular Member SpringfieldCarry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Colorado Springs
    Posts
    11
    Right underneath it though it states unless you have a permit.

    Posted via Galaxy S4 with Tapatalk

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Larimer County, CO
    Posts
    212
    Quote Originally Posted by SpringfieldCarry View Post
    Right underneath it though it states unless you have a permit.
    But that part is regarding CC only.

    If you look at it like this
    (1)It shall be unlawful for any person to carry, wear about their person or under their clothes, or concealed about their person, any firearm, handgun or mechanical gun.
    it looks inclusive.
    Last edited by Dario; 02-25-2014 at 02:39 PM.

  4. #4
    Regular Member SpringfieldCarry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Colorado Springs
    Posts
    11
    Yeah, that would make it the second County in Colorado to ban oc. Is this a new revision?

    Posted via Galaxy S4 with Tapatalk

  5. #5
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    Sec. 75-49. Open carry/concealed weapons prohibited.permanent link to this piece of content

    (1) It shall be unlawful for any person to carry, wear about their person or under their clothes, or concealed about their person, any firearm, handgun or mechanical gun.
    (2) The prohibition of wearing a handgun under one's clothes or concealing a handgun upon oneself shall not apply to any person in possession of valid state concealed handgun permit and in compliance with federal, state or local laws and regulations.
    (3) The prohibition of carrying or concealing a handgun shall not apply to any person carrying or concealing a handgun within a private automobile or other private means of conveyance, for the lawful protection of ones person or property while traveling.
    (4) It shall be an affirmative defense to this section that the weapon was carried or concealed by such person:
    (a) In defense of home, person or property, when in such home when there is a direct and immediate threat thereto;
    (b) In aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned;
    (c) For use in the course of lawful hunting activities or for transportation in the legitimate sporting use of such weapons, including shooting matches or other target shooting, or trap or skeet shooting, provided that all such weapons being so used shall be unloaded when carried or transported to or from such hunting trip or place of sporting use;
    (d) When such person is a collector or licensed dealer displaying or transporting such weapon for display or sale, or a citizen transporting such weapon for purpose of sale or repair to or from a place of sale or repair provided that all firearms so displayed or transported shall be unloaded at all times; or
    (e) While moving personal property as part of a relocation to a new residence.

    My question would be, 1) what is the Colorado Revised Statute regarding preemption and 2) what was final decision regarding grandfathering (or Denver's(?)) code?
    Last edited by Fallschirmjäger; 02-25-2014 at 02:48 PM.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Larimer County, CO
    Posts
    212
    Quote Originally Posted by SpringfieldCarry View Post
    Yeah, that would make it the second County in Colorado to ban oc. Is this a new revision?
    It's a city ord, not county. I don't think it's new and the only reason I noticed was because the city library has a no weapons sign posted with ord 75-50 which prompted me to do a little research.

  7. #7
    Regular Member mobiushky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Alaska (ex-Colorado)
    Posts
    840
    Colorado's pre-emption is not all encompassing as some people think. At least not the way it's written. The key point is:

    CRS 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.

    So by that reg, a city can ban OC "within the local government's jurisdiction." Currently the understanding is that means city owned properties. The city ordinance is essentially saying that all of their properties are instituted no OC, but in order to be compliant with state law it has to be posted per CRS 29-11.7-104.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Larimer County, CO
    Posts
    212
    Quote Originally Posted by mobiushky View Post
    Colorado's pre-emption is not all encompassing as some people think. At least not the way it's written. The key point is:

    CRS 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.

    So by that reg, a city can ban OC "within the local government's jurisdiction." Currently the understanding is that means city owned properties. The city ordinance is essentially saying that all of their properties are instituted no OC, but in order to be compliant with state law it has to be posted per CRS 29-11.7-104.
    That's what I was afraid of. The preemption law (C.S.R.18-12-105.6) does indicate that it only applies to travelling with a firearm in a vehicle. There are no signs at the city limits indicating OC is banned, which makes me wonder how can one challenge this without breaking the law.

  9. #9
    Regular Member mobiushky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Alaska (ex-Colorado)
    Posts
    840
    Quote Originally Posted by Dario View Post
    That's what I was afraid of. The preemption law (C.S.R.18-12-105.6) does indicate that it only applies to travelling with a firearm in a vehicle. There are no signs at the city limits indicating OC is banned, which makes me wonder how can one challenge this without breaking the law.
    The pre-emption law applies very strictly to concealed carry and to "types" of firearms and much less strictly to open carry. No municipality can make laws that contradict the concealed carry and the types of firearms that can be bought.

    That said, in CO, it's pretty widely accepted that the city cannot have an outright ban in the city limits on open carry. ONLY in the direct locations that the city owns. Parks, city buildings, etc. Further, if the location is not posted, it's not illegal per the CO constitution. Further still, in CO signs have no force of law. So the worst they can do at first is ask you to leave and come back without the gun. If you refuse, you will be trespassed. SO, my advice and pretty much anyone here will same about the same, is to open carry as you wish in the city limits so long as you don't OC into a posted area. If you are asked to leave, leave. Don't argue or refuse. Just leave.

    I OC'd CONSTANTLY in Parker before I moved. It's not gonna be a problem. The only time I was ever "confronted" by LEO was in Conifer at a Qdoba. He even said "I know it's legal, but you should think about the people here." Long story, but I did every thing I could to not laugh in his face because he was a Barney Fife looking guy who was also carrying and he was a wildlife officer.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Larimer County, CO
    Posts
    212
    So the municipal code does contradict the state law, since it specifically names OC in the statute, and includes it in section (1). Or am I missing something? I can see a young officer misinterpreting that.

  11. #11
    Regular Member mobiushky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Alaska (ex-Colorado)
    Posts
    840
    Quote Originally Posted by Dario View Post
    So the municipal code does contradict the state law, since it specifically names OC in the statute, and includes it in section (1). Or am I missing something? I can see a young officer misinterpreting that.
    It looks to me like this ordinance was adopted in 2005. (Ord. No. 2005-8, § 3, 3-1-05) If that's the case, then likely it does in fact contradict the State laws and is not valid. The State laws were changed in 2003. It's possible this was written to contradict the state law during the pending lawsuit by the city of Denver which was resolved in 2006. AS a guess, it's possible that the law simply has not been tested and therefore has never been changed.

    But be clear, if your question is in regards to OC in a city owned library, if the signs are posted, it is a valid ban. If the question is regarding general public areas like sidewalks etc, then the ordinance is invalid.

    Also, you should know that 2 recent cases were resolved in CO that involved OC'ers (both members of this forum at one point) were unlawfully stopped and either searched (lakewood) or arrested (Colorado Springs). In both cases, the police were found to be in the wrong and settlements were given. So it's a pretty well known thing that OC is allowed in CO. The police are less likely to enforce the ordinance unless you are clearly violating a posted sign on city property.

    ETA: just to be clear, I'm not a lawyer. I do spend an unhealthy amount of time reading the local statutes, but I'm not legal advice. So only go so far as you are willing to challenge. If you want to challenge, that's your decision. But, to be honest, I don't think you'll have an issue OC'ing in Lafayette unless you carrying into a posted building owned by the city.
    Last edited by mobiushky; 02-26-2014 at 03:05 PM.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Larimer County, CO
    Posts
    212
    Quote Originally Posted by mobiushky View Post

    But be clear, if your question is in regards to OC in a city owned library, if the signs are posted, it is a valid ban. If the question is regarding general public areas like sidewalks etc, then the ordinance is invalid.
    Thanks for the info! Yes I understand the posted signs, that is covered in 75-50 which complies with state law.

    This is about public sidewalks etc. and how I can get that ordinance revised or repealed. I'd rather do that before I find myself in handcuffs. As lucrative as a civil suit sounds I'd still rather avoid one in the first place
    Last edited by Dario; 02-26-2014 at 03:40 PM.

  13. #13
    Regular Member mobiushky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Alaska (ex-Colorado)
    Posts
    840
    Quote Originally Posted by Dario View Post
    Thanks for the info! Yes I understand the posted signs, that is covered in 75-50 which complies with state law.

    This is about public sidewalks etc. and how I can get that ordinance revised or repealed. I'd rather do that before I find myself in handcuffs. As lucrative as a civil suit sounds I'd still rather avoid one in the first place
    Certainly can't fault you for that!

  14. #14
    Regular Member SpringfieldCarry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Colorado Springs
    Posts
    11
    Yeah I don't think there's anything they can do about a CC'er.

    Posted via Galaxy S4 with Tapatalk

  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Dario View Post
    Seems to me this would violate preemption:

    Sec. 75-49. Open carry/concealed weapons prohibited
    (1)It shall be unlawful for any person to carry, wear about their person or under their clothes, or concealed about their person, any firearm, handgun or mechanical gun.

    Source
    You can't cherry-picking the law, my friend! You must read the ENTIRE code

    Sec. 75-49. Open carry/concealed weapons prohibited.permanent link to this piece of content

    (1) It shall be unlawful for any person to carry, wear about their person or under their clothes, or concealed about their person, any firearm, handgun or mechanical gun.
    (2) The prohibition of wearing a handgun under one's clothes or concealing a handgun upon oneself shall not apply to any person in possession of valid state concealed handgun permit and in compliance with federal, state or local laws and regulations.
    (3) The prohibition of carrying or concealing a handgun shall not apply to any person carrying or concealing a handgun within a private automobile or other private means of conveyance, for the lawful protection of ones person or property while traveling.
    (4) It shall be an affirmative defense to this section that the weapon was carried or concealed by such person:
    (a) In defense of home, person or property, when in such home when there is a direct and immediate threat thereto;
    (b) In aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned;
    (c) For use in the course of lawful hunting activities or for transportation in the legitimate sporting use of such weapons, including shooting matches or other target shooting, or trap or skeet shooting, provided that all such weapons being so used shall be unloaded when carried or transported to or from such hunting trip or place of sporting use;
    (d) When such person is a collector or licensed dealer displaying or transporting such weapon for display or sale, or a citizen transporting such weapon for purpose of sale or repair to or from a place of sale or repair provided that all firearms so displayed or transported shall be unloaded at all times; or
    (e) While moving personal property as part of a relocation to a new residence.

    The way the law works in most states, they tell you what's prohibited, then provide a list of exceptions. In the State of Colorado, those exceptions are called an "affirmative defense." Basically, they're a list of all the times when you can carry either OC or CC.

    That's not to say the statute doesn't violate our State's Constitution. By narrowing down the times when you can carry, it also excludes all the other times permitted under the State Constitution, and therefore in violation of the Constitution.

    Frankly, I'm at a loss as to how stupid some legislators can really be. In their stupidity, they wind up placing a huge financial burden on their own citizens to fight for the freedoms which the legislators should be protecting, not infringing.

    I can't help but wonder if some of those legislators are lawyers who knowing and intentionally obfuscate the law in order to drum up more potential business for the law firms with which they've partnered. These and many similar incidents lead me to believe there will come a day when We the People are so fed up with these hijincks we pass amendments to bar all lawyers and anyone else with even a hint of conflict of interest from political office.

    Regardless, on closer read, this is a FLAGRANT violation of the Second Amendment's prohibition against any infringement on the right to keep and bear arms. It violates our State Constitution, as well. Vehemently.

    The first time anyone attempts to enforce this, the city will LOSE between $30,000 and $65,000, hands down. Same as Ft. Collins did a few years back when they tried pulling the same crap. STUPID.

    "Shall not be infringed" means "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."
    Last edited by since9; 02-28-2014 at 05:39 AM.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Larimer County, CO
    Posts
    212
    UPDATE: Spoke with the Mayor and she told me the ordinance is UN-enforceable per state law. She said other cities have the same ordinance but it is only used to "discourage" OC. Not happy with that so I called the City Attorney and I asked him if an ordinance is not enforceable then why is it on the books in the first place? HE said they are in the process of modifying the ordinances and he will bring it up in the next few sessions.

    EDIT: call back from City Attorney's office confirming that the ordinance 75-49 will be modified in compliance with C.R.S. 29-11.7-104 "within 30 days."

    I'll believe it when I see it.
    Last edited by Dario; 03-14-2014 at 09:40 PM. Reason: spelling and update

  17. #17
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    As long as the statute is on the books, there isn't anything to stop an officer from arresting for a violation of it, is there? Sure it might be a payday for Joe Citizen, but it's Definitely going to take away his freedom for a couple hours or more.
    And since it's 'on the books' and since Officer Friendly is 'operating in good faith' he's not going to face any repercussions for his actions.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Weld County, CO
    Posts
    10
    I've run into the same situation in Golden. Except when I called the local PD they said they didn't care that state law requires that they post a sign, and that they can't have a blanket ban on the books, the officer said she didn't care and that " We don't want you people with guns in our town, and if we see you we will throw you in jail."

    Compared by the officer in Lakewood, who said if they got a call they would come and talk to me to make sure I wasn't a nut job, but other than that I wouldn't be harassed or given any trouble."

    Guess where I spend money when I'm down that way...

    Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Larimer County, CO
    Posts
    212
    Quote Originally Posted by jdmccay View Post
    I've run into the same situation in Golden. Except when I called the local PD they said they didn't care that state law requires that they post a sign, and that they can't have a blanket ban on the books, the officer said she didn't care and that " We don't want you people with guns in our town, and if we see you we will throw you in jail."

    Compared by the officer in Lakewood, who said if they got a call they would come and talk to me to make sure I wasn't a nut job, but other than that I wouldn't be harassed or given any trouble."

    Guess where I spend money when I'm down that way...

    Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk
    That's one of the reasons I'm trying the legislative path first, get that changed before anyone has to deal with the exec.

  20. #20
    Regular Member JamesB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Lakewood, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    703
    Quote Originally Posted by jdmccay View Post
    I've run into the same situation in Golden. Except when I called the local PD they said they didn't care that state law requires that they post a sign, and that they can't have a blanket ban on the books, the officer said she didn't care and that " We don't want you people with guns in our town, and if we see you we will throw you in jail."

    Compared by the officer in Lakewood, who said if they got a call they would come and talk to me to make sure I wasn't a nut job, but other than that I wouldn't be harassed or given any trouble."

    Guess where I spend money when I'm down that way...

    Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk
    Sounds like a good reason for a meet n greet in Golden to me.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Brighton
    Posts
    73

    thornton movie theater arrest

    Thornton tried that with that movie goer arrest while back.
    Still waiting for the lawsuit results.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Brighton
    Posts
    73

    lakewood pd

    My opinion. Lakewood PD has some of the most professional police in Colorado. Adams county sheriff is good as well. My worst interaction was with Thornton PD.

  23. #23
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Thornton, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    136
    Quote Originally Posted by lukaszu View Post
    My opinion. Lakewood PD has some of the most professional police in Colorado. Adams county sheriff is good as well. My worst interaction was with Thornton PD.
    Never had any issues with Thornton, which is where I live.
    What were the circumstances of your encounter?

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Brighton
    Posts
    73

    thornton...

    Short story, someone called pd because the seen me pump gas while OC. 120 & Colorado.
    LEO pulls up and very rudly demands to know why I am carring a weapon ( I'm heading to the mountains) . He then tells me how I'm scarring people and that if I do not want to find my self in a bad situation I should leave it in the car. ...then I made a comment about how he should leave his too.... Then he called me a smart ass. And how he would cite me if he gets called again.
    Sorry for the short version by am typing on my phone.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Brighton
    Posts
    73

    vs lakewood

    Vs Lakewood LEO rolls by as I'm packing groceries. "How u doing" ...me Good!, How are you?
    - contact ends.
    Vs Adams county sheriff .. while walking my dog. I see LEO in cruiser abserving me for about 10 min.
    Deputy drives by ..nods his head / I nod back. - contact ends.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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