• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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.

Garden of the Gods Gun Ban Sign (pictures)

Anubis

Newbie
Joined
Sep 16, 2006
Messages
451
Location
Arapahoe County CO, ,
imported post

TheCO revised statute quoted above authorizes local governments to prohibit open carry. So if every entrance to the Garden of the Gods were posted something like "no open carry of firearms", then open carry would be illegal inside. The local government does not have the authority to ban concealed firearms, at least without metal detectors and guards at every entrance, so GoG's "Firearms are prohibited" alleges a power that is not authorized.
 

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,706
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
imported post

Anubis wrote:
TheCO revised statute quoted above authorizes local governments to prohibit open carry. So if every entrance to the Garden of the Gods were posted something like "no open carry of firearms", then open carry would be illegal inside.
No - posting is not dispositive - an ordiance or regulation banning open carry must firt be enacted by the locality - has anyone cited such ordiance or regulation?
 

Gunslinger

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
3,853
Location
Free, Colorado, USA
imported post

The only COS ordinances are the ones I posted. Nothing else is on topic. As I said, per current state and city law: that sign has no weight of law. I have also contacted the head of the CO Gun Owners asc on it, which I plan on joining. If anyone should have the real scoop, I would bet on him.
 

reefteach

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2006
Messages
511
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
imported post

THE SIGN IS DOWN!!

:monkey:monkey:monkey

Here is part of a very personable, and sincere update from a Parks manager:
First, I must apologize to you about the sign. The ban on firearms in parks was lifted by our City Council a number of years ago and we went about the task of changing all posted signage banning firearms. With over 200 park areas and many with multiple rule signs the effort to change the wording was considerable and from time to time ones that were missed are identified. Quite obviously we missed this sign at the Manitou entrance of Garden of the Gods Park. As of this morning the wording prohibiting firearms has been removed. I am extremely sorry that you lost the opportunity to visit the park since you believed that you could not legally bring your guns with you. Garden of the Gods is one of the highlights of a tourist’s trip to our City and I sincerely hope you are able to visit again and can experience the park with peace of mind.



On another note, Colorado Springs is a Home Rule Municipality and is self governing as permitted under Article XX of the Constitution of the State of Colorado; Title 31, Article 1, Section 202 of the Colorado Revised Statutes. This permits the City to enact laws within the guidelines of its City Charter regarding such things as gun possession in public places. As I previously mentioned, several years ago City Council chose to lift the ban on possessing guns in parks and public buildings.



Thank you for notifying us about the Garden of the Gods sign. Please accept my sincerest apologies for any inconvenience this may have caused you.
I think the part about home rule might be addressing my concern that the Sheriff's office didn't want people open carrying in city parks. Maybe not though, becauseI didn't mention OC in the email to the parks; only to the councilperson.

I thought I understood denwego's explanation about Colorado's version of preemption, but now I am confused again.
 

Evil Ernie

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2007
Messages
779
Location
Castle Rock, Colorado, USA
imported post

Great job Reef!!!!!!!!! It's a good feeling when the system works our way for a change, even in the small victories, it's a good thing!!!
Maybe we'll have to do a group OC in GOG!!!
 

denwego

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2006
Messages
276
Location
Houston, Texas, USA
imported post

Their mention of the ability, within the statutes they quoted, to ban guns in public places is them possibly making a notice of the fact that they could pass a law banning OC in a park, but have not done so given that they repealed their laws many years ago.

Colorado state law allows home-rule municipalities to ban both open and concealed carry, so long as they abide by the requirements of it. OC is the only practical manner to regulate, as it merely requires posted notice; banning CC requires permanent security screening devices to be in place at all public entrances to the banned area... in practice, that means courthouses, the statehouse, and the like where having a permanent police presence is already a factor. Since parks obviously never meet the requirements for restricting CC, it is illegal to ban it. But they still retain the power... I think that's what they were getting at.
 

UTOC-45-44

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2007
Messages
2,579
Location
Morgan, Utah, USA
imported post

When I visited the Garden last year I CCW ALLLLLLLL the way:celebrate.

I wish I would have OCed but I wanted my wife to have a Good Time at the Garden.

I did OC at times while in COS though.

Thanksreefteach



TJ
 

DocNTexas

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
300
Location
, Texas, USA
imported post

denwego wrote:
RockyMtnScotsman wrote:
Gunslinger wrote:
If Denver can ban open carry, COS certainly could in its parks,....
It's my understanding that Denver got away with this due to their home rule provision - which does not, to the best of my understanding, exist in COS where the state pre-emption applies instead.

Denver got away with it because the preemption law is contained in Title 29 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, which regulates municipal governments (both statutory and home-rule) functioning below the level of state government. Denver isn't a home-rule municipality; it's a consolidated city-and-county, which means that although it functions like a municipal government, it is technical a portion of state government as a county. The preemption doesn't restrict state law (instead, like other preemption laws, it reserves it to the state)... as such, Denver law carries the same legal weight as a regular state law, albeit only within the county limits of Denver. Normal, non-consolidated counties, such as Boulder County where I am, don't have the authority to pass laws like that, so they can't ban OC, and the preemption law keeps cities and towns within those counties from doing it either.

There's only one other consolidated city-and-county in Colorado: Broomfield, which is just south of Boulder county and is likewise quite tiny. However, their laws are in conformity with the norm for the state and they have no all-inclusive laws restricting OC.

Denwego,

Counties are not part of state government, they are home rule just like cities. If you read the Denver case you will find that Denver usesthe argument that they are a "home-rule government". Likewise, the justices point out that Denver is a home-rule government in their decision.

The reason Denver prevailed on the open carry portion of their appeal is simply because preemption requires that a state law exist that contradicts a law established by a lower government, thus the meaning of the term "preemption" (i.e. the state law preempts the local government law).Since there is no state law that allows for open carry (merely nolawprohibiting it) there is no state law to preempt a local law prohibiting it, thus, it is legal for local governments to make and enforce a law that prohibits open carry. This holds true for any local government in Colorado, city or county. Until there is an actual state law expressly allowing for open carry in Colorado, any city or county government in Colorado can do exactly what Denver did and it will be just as legal.

Doc
 

Gunslinger

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
3,853
Location
Free, Colorado, USA
imported post

No city/town/county can ban cc, except as provided by state law--schools, metal detector at building and posted signs. As noted, oc is another story. As no sstate law provides for it, COS could ban it more widely, but as the most gun friendly large city in the US, that won't happen. Great job by the group to get an unlawful sign removed! And a very quick and nice response from the Park manager. Attaboy Reef!:D
 

lopoetve

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2008
Messages
65
Location
, ,
imported post

DocNTexas wrote:
denwego wrote:
RockyMtnScotsman wrote:
Gunslinger wrote:
If Denver can ban open carry, COS certainly could in its parks,....
It's my understanding that Denver got away with this due to their home rule provision - which does not, to the best of my understanding, exist in COS where the state pre-emption applies instead.

Denver got away with it because the preemption law is contained in Title 29 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, which regulates municipal governments (both statutory and home-rule) functioning below the level of state government. Denver isn't a home-rule municipality; it's a consolidated city-and-county, which means that although it functions like a municipal government, it is technical a portion of state government as a county. The preemption doesn't restrict state law (instead, like other preemption laws, it reserves it to the state)... as such, Denver law carries the same legal weight as a regular state law, albeit only within the county limits of Denver. Normal, non-consolidated counties, such as Boulder County where I am, don't have the authority to pass laws like that, so they can't ban OC, and the preemption law keeps cities and towns within those counties from doing it either.

There's only one other consolidated city-and-county in Colorado: Broomfield, which is just south of Boulder county and is likewise quite tiny. However, their laws are in conformity with the norm for the state and they have no all-inclusive laws restricting OC.

Denwego,

Counties are not part of state government, they are home rule just like cities. If you read the Denver case you will find that Denver usesthe argument that they are a "home-rule government". Likewise, the justices point out that Denver is a home-rule government in their decision.

The reason Denver prevailed on the open carry portion of their appeal is simply because preemption requires that a state law exist that contradicts a law established by a lower government, thus the meaning of the term "preemption" (i.e. the state law preempts the local government law).Since there is no state law that allows for open carry (merely nolawprohibiting it) there is no state law to preempt a local law prohibiting it, thus, it is legal for local governments to make and enforce a law that prohibits open carry. This holds true for any local government in Colorado, city or county. Until there is an actual state law expressly allowing for open carry in Colorado, any city or county government in Colorado can do exactly what Denver did and it will be just as legal.

Doc
By my understanding though, they can only prohibit in direct areas they control (municipal buildings, parks, etc) - anything that is state or public area is outside their control. Is this wrong?
 

DocNTexas

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
300
Location
, Texas, USA
imported post

lopoetve wrote:
DocNTexas wrote:
denwego wrote:
RockyMtnScotsman wrote:
Gunslinger wrote:
If Denver can ban open carry, COS certainly could in its parks,....
It's my understanding that Denver got away with this due to their home rule provision - which does not, to the best of my understanding, exist in COS where the state pre-emption applies instead.

Denver got away with it because the preemption law is contained in Title 29 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, which regulates municipal governments (both statutory and home-rule) functioning below the level of state government. Denver isn't a home-rule municipality; it's a consolidated city-and-county, which means that although it functions like a municipal government, it is technical a portion of state government as a county. The preemption doesn't restrict state law (instead, like other preemption laws, it reserves it to the state)... as such, Denver law carries the same legal weight as a regular state law, albeit only within the county limits of Denver. Normal, non-consolidated counties, such as Boulder County where I am, don't have the authority to pass laws like that, so they can't ban OC, and the preemption law keeps cities and towns within those counties from doing it either.

There's only one other consolidated city-and-county in Colorado: Broomfield, which is just south of Boulder county and is likewise quite tiny. However, their laws are in conformity with the norm for the state and they have no all-inclusive laws restricting OC.

Denwego,

Counties are not part of state government, they are home rule just like cities. If you read the Denver case you will find that Denver usesthe argument that they are a "home-rule government". Likewise, the justices point out that Denver is a home-rule government in their decision.

The reason Denver prevailed on the open carry portion of their appeal is simply because preemption requires that a state law exist that contradicts a law established by a lower government, thus the meaning of the term "preemption" (i.e. the state law preempts the local government law).Since there is no state law that allows for open carry (merely nolawprohibiting it) there is no state law to preempt a local law prohibiting it, thus, it is legal for local governments to make and enforce a law that prohibits open carry. This holds true for any local government in Colorado, city or county. Until there is an actual state law expressly allowing for open carry in Colorado, any city or county government in Colorado can do exactly what Denver did and it will be just as legal.

Doc
By my understanding though, they can only prohibit in direct areas they control (municipal buildings, parks, etc) - anything that is state or public area is outside their control. Is this wrong?

Any city, town or county government (any local government body) can regulate any area that is within their jurisdictionto any degree that is not otherwise provided for by a higher governmental body.

In other words, they can impose such regulations anywhere within their jurisdiction, except where expressly allowed for by state law. Since there is nolaw expressly allowing for "open carry" in public areas in Colorado (merely no state law prohibiting it) then a local government can indeed impose regulations against it in ANY public access area, not just city owned property. The only area they cannot regulate is private property under your control.

You are confusing the provision of the CCW statute that allows local governments to postcertain property against CCW, which requires them to meet certain criteria in order to do so, but as far as open carry goes, they can create and enforce local laws against that as they wish.

Take care and be safe,

Doc
 

lopoetve

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2008
Messages
65
Location
, ,
imported post

DocNTexas wrote:
lopoetve wrote:
DocNTexas wrote:
denwego wrote:
RockyMtnScotsman wrote:
Gunslinger wrote:
If Denver can ban open carry, COS certainly could in its parks,....
It's my understanding that Denver got away with this due to their home rule provision - which does not, to the best of my understanding, exist in COS where the state pre-emption applies instead.

Denver got away with it because the preemption law is contained in Title 29 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, which regulates municipal governments (both statutory and home-rule) functioning below the level of state government. Denver isn't a home-rule municipality; it's a consolidated city-and-county, which means that although it functions like a municipal government, it is technical a portion of state government as a county. The preemption doesn't restrict state law (instead, like other preemption laws, it reserves it to the state)... as such, Denver law carries the same legal weight as a regular state law, albeit only within the county limits of Denver. Normal, non-consolidated counties, such as Boulder County where I am, don't have the authority to pass laws like that, so they can't ban OC, and the preemption law keeps cities and towns within those counties from doing it either.

There's only one other consolidated city-and-county in Colorado: Broomfield, which is just south of Boulder county and is likewise quite tiny. However, their laws are in conformity with the norm for the state and they have no all-inclusive laws restricting OC.

Denwego,

Counties are not part of state government, they are home rule just like cities. If you read the Denver case you will find that Denver usesthe argument that they are a "home-rule government". Likewise, the justices point out that Denver is a home-rule government in their decision.

The reason Denver prevailed on the open carry portion of their appeal is simply because preemption requires that a state law exist that contradicts a law established by a lower government, thus the meaning of the term "preemption" (i.e. the state law preempts the local government law).Since there is no state law that allows for open carry (merely nolawprohibiting it) there is no state law to preempt a local law prohibiting it, thus, it is legal for local governments to make and enforce a law that prohibits open carry. This holds true for any local government in Colorado, city or county. Until there is an actual state law expressly allowing for open carry in Colorado, any city or county government in Colorado can do exactly what Denver did and it will be just as legal.

Doc
By my understanding though, they can only prohibit in direct areas they control (municipal buildings, parks, etc) - anything that is state or public area is outside their control. Is this wrong?

Any city, town or county government (any local government body) can regulate any area that is within their jurisdictionto any degree that is not otherwise provided for by a higher governmental body.

In other words, they can impose such regulations anywhere within their jurisdiction, except where expressly allowed for by state law. Since there is nolaw expressly allowing for "open carry" in public areas in Colorado (merely no state law prohibiting it) then a local government can indeed impose regulations against it in ANY public access area, not just city owned property. The only area they cannot regulate is private property under your control.

You are confusing the provision of the CCW statute that allows local governments to postcertain property against CCW, which requires them to meet certain criteria in order to do so, but as far as open carry goes, they can create and enforce local laws against that as they wish.

Take care and be safe,

Doc
If there is no law allowing it, then what is the point of the preemption clause? My understanding was that it preempted localities from banning open carry - hence why all the laws changed a few years back after the preemption clause was passed. If that's not true, why were all of the local smaller governments forced to change their policies?
 

Gunslinger

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
3,853
Location
Free, Colorado, USA
imported post

Local governments cannot regulate concealed carry. That is preempted to State law only. They can put metal detectors in government buildings, under the state law that says no ccw in that situation, but cannot regulate CCW in any other way. As there is no open carry allowed law, they can do pretty much what they want in banning open carry, however. As there is no state law, there can be no "preemption." But concealed carry is regulated only under the State.
 

DocNTexas

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
300
Location
, Texas, USA
imported post

lopoetve wrote:
DocNTexas wrote:
lopoetve wrote:
DocNTexas wrote:
denwego wrote:
RockyMtnScotsman wrote:
Gunslinger wrote:
If Denver can ban open carry, COS certainly could in its parks,....
It's my understanding that Denver got away with this due to their home rule provision - which does not, to the best of my understanding, exist in COS where the state pre-emption applies instead.

Denver got away with it because the preemption law is contained in Title 29 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, which regulates municipal governments (both statutory and home-rule) functioning below the level of state government. Denver isn't a home-rule municipality; it's a consolidated city-and-county, which means that although it functions like a municipal government, it is technical a portion of state government as a county. The preemption doesn't restrict state law (instead, like other preemption laws, it reserves it to the state)... as such, Denver law carries the same legal weight as a regular state law, albeit only within the county limits of Denver. Normal, non-consolidated counties, such as Boulder County where I am, don't have the authority to pass laws like that, so they can't ban OC, and the preemption law keeps cities and towns within those counties from doing it either.

There's only one other consolidated city-and-county in Colorado: Broomfield, which is just south of Boulder county and is likewise quite tiny. However, their laws are in conformity with the norm for the state and they have no all-inclusive laws restricting OC.

Denwego,

Counties are not part of state government, they are home rule just like cities. If you read the Denver case you will find that Denver usesthe argument that they are a "home-rule government". Likewise, the justices point out that Denver is a home-rule government in their decision.

The reason Denver prevailed on the open carry portion of their appeal is simply because preemption requires that a state law exist that contradicts a law established by a lower government, thus the meaning of the term "preemption" (i.e. the state law preempts the local government law).Since there is no state law that allows for open carry (merely nolawprohibiting it) there is no state law to preempt a local law prohibiting it, thus, it is legal for local governments to make and enforce a law that prohibits open carry. This holds true for any local government in Colorado, city or county. Until there is an actual state law expressly allowing for open carry in Colorado, any city or county government in Colorado can do exactly what Denver did and it will be just as legal.

Doc
By my understanding though, they can only prohibit in direct areas they control (municipal buildings, parks, etc) - anything that is state or public area is outside their control. Is this wrong?

Any city, town or county government (any local government body) can regulate any area that is within their jurisdictionto any degree that is not otherwise provided for by a higher governmental body.

In other words, they can impose such regulations anywhere within their jurisdiction, except where expressly allowed for by state law. Since there is nolaw expressly allowing for "open carry" in public areas in Colorado (merely no state law prohibiting it) then a local government can indeed impose regulations against it in ANY public access area, not just city owned property. The only area they cannot regulate is private property under your control.

You are confusing the provision of the CCW statute that allows local governments to postcertain property against CCW, which requires them to meet certain criteria in order to do so, but as far as open carry goes, they can create and enforce local laws against that as they wish.

Take care and be safe,

Doc
If there is no law allowing it, then what is the point of the preemption clause? My understanding was that it preempted localities from banning open carry - hence why all the laws changed a few years back after the preemption clause was passed. If that's not true, why were all of the local smaller governments forced to change their policies?
As Gunslinger so eloquentlypointed out above, the changes you speak of were in regard to CCW, not open carry. As I pointed out in my last post, youare confusing the provision allowing the posting of certain government buildings against CCW as pertaining to open carry as well, which it does not.

Open carry is a privilege long enjoyed in Colorado that has no lawful allowance, merely no law prohibiting it. Many towns actually have ordinances against it but in many cases it went unenforced. In recent years, fueled in part by the push forpassage of aCCW law and further by the media hype over the Denver stance, other communities began resurrecting their no carry laws against both open and concealed carry.Preemption made it necessary for these communities to rewrite their local laws to comply with state law concerning CCW, butthis did not affect open carry as there is no law specifically allowing for open carry. This is the basis of the Denver ruling and that ruling applies to any local government in Colorado, not just Denver.

In short, anything not prohibited by law is allowable (such as open carry). At the same time, if there is no state law specifically allowing for an activity (thus covered my preemption), then a local government can enact a law againstthat activity (again, asis the casewithopen carry). In contrast, since there is a state law specifically allowing for CCW, local governments are preempted from making laws that prohibit it or further restrict it other than to the extent specifically outline in the state law.

Clear as mud now? :)

Hope this helps.

Doc
 

Gunslinger

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
3,853
Location
Free, Colorado, USA
imported post

Just to finish things off, I got a phone call from the Parks Commisioner for Colorado Springs. He reiterated the sign was a mistake and was taken down immediately, and stated clearly that open carry--as well as concealed, is permitted in the Garden of the Gods and any other Springs owned parks. He said, of course, discharge of firearms is prohibited--as it is in the city proper, but carrying a weapon is a right of Colorado citizens and that is recognized by the city of Colorado Springs. A little late, but still appreciated.
 

reefteach

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2006
Messages
511
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
imported post

Thanks for the accolades everyone. Here in Ohio, where preemption only took effect about a year ago, we frequently run into municipalities who are unaware that their signs must come down. Even private businesses are often misinformed that they must post. Notifyingpeople to take their signs down is a bit of a hobby of ours here.
 
Top