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.