Denver OC ???

imported post

Due to my circumstances, I would probably be a good candidate. I will not be able to petition for a CCW until 2012 and I'm going to have to open carry exclusively until then. That should be interesting enough as I live in the Vail/Beaver Creek area. Won't be able to start until January but when I do, I'll keep you all posted.

imported post

Perhaps it would be wise to wait until challenges are filed in other places like San Francisco and Chicago. If handgun bans in those cities are struck down citing the Heller decision, then the decision has some weight at the state level. Then a move could be made to challenge OC restrictions. Maybe in light of an almost certain defeat, Denver would change it's ordinances voluntarily, without anyone having to go to jail. We must all remember that those of us who choose to challenge a law, however unjust we think it is, must be prepared to face the consequences.

imported post

Brass wrote:

Due to my circumstances, I would probably be a good candidate. I will not be able to petition for a CCW until 2012 and I'm going to have to open carry exclusively until then. That should be interesting enough as I live in the Vail/Beaver Creek area. Won't be able to start until January but when I do, I'll keep you all posted.

Click to expand...

The only legal trouble you will step into for OCing is in Denver. OC is OK everywhere else, except for public places posted "no OC" at all entrances or merchants' "no carry" signs.

imported post

Although I would not make a good candidate (I'm too pretty for jail), I do havea friend(?) that is a freakin dipstick...legal, but needs to go away cuz he annoys me at work...heh...

imported post

I would love to get a copy of that map. Denver is a pretty big town and I lived there most of my years, but the county lines get confusing.

imported post

Anubis wrote:

By now we all have seen that Heller was affirmed by the Supremes. (Odd how Heller was affirmed in DC Circuit court by 1 vote and later in the Supreme Court by 1 vote.)

The wording in the majority opinion found that the second amendment guarantees "the individual the right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation".

I see this as abasis for a future challenge to the Denver OC prohibition. If someone does not have a CWP,he should still be able to bear arms for self defense and the only legal way would then be OC. Any volunteers for the test case?

Click to expand...

All 9 Justices agreed it was an individual right, in the court decision and both dissents. That question is now settled for all time, barring something weird happening. Further, it gives greater standing to file suit under the equal protection clause of either state or federal constitutions. That could be interesting. Here's a for instance: Mike can OC in El Paso County, Harry can't in Denver County. Prima facia proof of lack of equal protection, in that safeguards of the 2nd aren't equally applied? Who can say.

imported post

"Equal Protection" doesn't mean that laws cannot be different in different places. It just means that you have to apply the law the same way to different sets of people or different groups within the same jurisdiction.

The Equal Protection clause of the 14th is the vehicle by which most of the US BOR has been incorporated against the states over time, and falsely IMO, but they have not extended the 2nd to the states as of yet.

On the case of Denver's OC, they exercised their right to Home Rule as stated in Article XX of the Colorado Constitution. Art. XX Section 6 regarding a home rule charter states:

"Such charter and the ordinances made pursuant thereto in such matters shall supersede within the territorial limits and other jurisdiction of said city or town any law of the state in conflict therewith."

I'm not entirely sure what arguments the state used in case decided by Judge Meyers, but perhaps they went about it the wrong way. Denver can override the states' law but not Section 13 of the Colo. BOR:

"The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons"

So perhaps that would have been a better argument than simply saying that the State of Colorado had more compelling interest in Denver's OC law than Denver did. Just my thoughts.

imported post

"Equal Protection" doesn't mean that laws cannot be different in different places. It just means that you have to apply the law the same way to different sets of people or different groups within the same jurisdiction.


That's the point. Within the same jurisdiction, the law--including exclusionary tenets, must be equally applied. A right deprived of one class, but available to another, is unconstitutional. And geographic locale has been repeatedly held to be a 'class' within a jurisdiction, e.g., a state. Not saying it would fly, simply saying it is a potential cause of action and has been used successfully in Commerce disputes.

imported post

Granted gunslinger, but the "law" in this case was constitutionally overridden by the Home Rule amendment. The equal protection argument doesn't work if the law is itself invalid.

On another note, it appears as though Judge Meyers did look at the RKBA provision of the CO. Constitution:

"The Colorado Constitution, while protecting the right to bear arms, does not specifically commit regulation of open carrying of firearms to either state or local government."

The judge was already pre-supposing that the action of OC can be regulated to the point of being banned, and is using a 10th amendment type rationale to say that since the power of that regulation isn't specifically given to the state, it belongs to the people (Denver). I agree with the second premise, but the first is false. If you have the right to "bear arms in defense of (your) home, person and property" that means carrying a gun on your person outside the limits of your property. A right that can be regulated to the point of complete prohibition is no right at all. And you can't limit the use of "bear" to make it analagous to "carry" and insist that carry should be concealed because the amendment specifically does not protect CC, leaving it open to statutorial regulation or prohibition. Our 13th Amendment, if you will, is a clear protection of OPEN carry in defense of your person. We should consider ourselves very fortunate here in Colorado. Some states don't protect RKBA at ANY level.

imported post

centsi wrote:

Granted gunslinger, but the "law" in this case was constitutionally overridden by the Home Rule amendment. The equal protection argument doesn't work if the law is itself invalid.

Click to expand...

I was referring to action in Federal Court, not CO. Like I said, a very long reach, but we are talking hypothetically. And you never can be sure of being given standing in Federal Courts anyway.

imported post

I certainly agree with you there. You never know what a federal court will decide on a whim.