Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 29

Thread: Loaded handgun while OC in Boulder

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Boulder, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    26

    Post imported post

    Hi all,

    You may know there's been a really good, healthy discussion here regarding OC'ing in Boulder with a loaded handgun. I have had several Boulder LEO's advise me that as per Boulder Revised Statute 5-8-8 (see the links in other threads I've posted here) it is unlawful to have your handgun loaded while OC'ing inside of Boulder. As I want to be a responsible handgun owner and remain lawful, I have been calling into the Boulder PD and trying to go up the chain of command to get a better clarification. I finally got an officer who was very adamant about wanting to ensure I got accurate and true information and was willing to do the work to make that happen, so this LEO got an opinion from the DA regarding this. My fiancee came in from a medical study abroad program on Monday and we ran out to the bank in a rush and I left my recorder at home, and of course, received the call while I was out, so I did not get this recorded but I did ask and repeat what I was told to ensure I understood correctly, and I wrote it down at the time I was being told and repeated what I wrote back. That being said, this is the DA's opinion requested and received by this officer, told to me on 7.22.08 at 1640 hours. Don't sue me over this good faith attempt to help us become more educated about this.

    A loaded handgun is having ammunition in the magazine and the magazine in the magazine well, with or without a round in the chamber. I did not get any clarification regarding revolvers and having a hammer on an empty cylinder, so I won't even give my opinion on this.
    In the city of Boulder, if you have a CCW, it is OK to carry a loaded handgun while carrying CONCEALED and OK to carry a loaded hangun while carrying OPEN. If you DO NOT have a CCW, it is UNLAWFUL to carry a loaded handgun OPEN, and of course, illegal to carry concealed at all (with exceptions provided for home/vehicle/business/etc statutes outside the scope of this email). Further, it is UNLAWFUL to carry a handgun CONCEALED OR OPEN WITHIN THE CITY OF BOULDER in ANY parks or open space. The officer and myself were both surprised at this last part. I asked something like "So, I couldn't carry concealed with a CCW in Chataqua?" and was advised no, it's within the city of Boulder. I then asked about the hiking trails on Flagstaff mountain (like around the halfway house trail up there that has "no firearms" plaquards posted) and she said that shouldn't be inside the city and said there should be a list online of what parks/open spaces were within Boulder City.

    These are the opinions of the Boulder District Attorney's office as received by Officer Versstaedy (spelling?) and relayed to me, at my request for clarification. I offer this DA's office interpretation to you in good faith for your information so that you can feel comfortable that you are operating within the law when you OC with a loaded handgun within the city of Boulder. I have not included any opinion of mine or the officer relaying this information to me inside this email. Of course, you should always verify any questions you might have with a credible source and encourage you to verify this yourself if you have any doubt. I hope this was helpful.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Castle Rock, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    779

    Post imported post

    HORSE HOCKEY!!! You can carry concealed in all places in CO except gov't buildings with security/screening permanently in place, and public schools. State preemption grants it!!!
    I would call the LEO back and tell him of state preemption, and the affirmative defenses. Since he was genuinely interested in your queries, he should have no prob going back to the DA and advising him/her of this. You should call the DA as well and have a little chat about affirmative defense and preemption.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Boulder, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    26

    Post imported post

    When I saw "HORSE HOCKEY!" the image of Col. Potter jumped in my head. Hehe.

    I know what you're saying about pre-emption. CRS 18-12-214 states in "(1)(a) A permit to carry a concealed handgun authorized the permitee to carry a concealed handgun in all areas of the state, except as specifically limited in this section.....A local government does not have authority to adopt or enforce an ordinance or resolution that would conflict with any provision of this part 2" It seems like pretty plain language and the limitations are the standard federal limitations(2), schools(3), public buildings with security(4)(a)-(c),and private establishments who prohibit it. However, I wanted to make sure that email was not a statement of my opinion in any way and only a relay of information I received.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Anubis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Arapahoe County CO, ,
    Posts
    451

    Post imported post

    I agree with Evil Ernie. Boulder's DA opinion is contrary to state law. Except for Denver's general ban on OC, both OC and CC are subject to general ban only on private property, for example, Barnes and Noble. (Remember at the BN face-off, the officers quoted at least 1 law you violated, yet they did not arrest you.)

    Regarding public property, CC is generally prohibited only at places on the statutory off-limits list, OC can be prohibited in specific buildings or areas if all public entrances to same are posted to that effect, something like "open carry of firearms prohibited".

    To change the Boulder DA's opinion, since he probably won't converse with commoners like us, someone must sue Boulder.
    Last edited by Anubis; 06-18-2011 at 05:55 PM. Reason: because I still can

  5. #5
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855

    Post imported post

    TheDuellist wrote:
    Hi all,

    You may know there's been a really good, healthy discussion here regarding OC'ing in Boulder with a loaded handgun. I have had several Boulder LEO's advise me that as per Boulder Revised Statute 5-8-8 (see the links in other threads I've posted here) it is unlawful to have your handgun loaded while OC'ing inside of Boulder. As I want to be a responsible handgun owner and remain lawful, I have been calling into the Boulder PD and trying to go up the chain of command to get a better clarification. I finally got an officer who was very adamant about wanting to ensure I got accurate and true information and was willing to do the work to make that happen, so this LEO got an opinion from the DA regarding this. My fiancee came in from a medical study abroad program on Monday and we ran out to the bank in a rush and I left my recorder at home, and of course, received the call while I was out, so I did not get this recorded but I did ask and repeat what I was told to ensure I understood correctly, and I wrote it down at the time I was being told and repeated what I wrote back. That being said, this is the DA's opinion requested and received by this officer, told to me on 7.22.08 at 1640 hours. Don't sue me over this good faith attempt to help us become more educated about this.

    A loaded handgun is having ammunition in the magazine and the magazine in the magazine well, with or without a round in the chamber. I did not get any clarification regarding revolvers and having a hammer on an empty cylinder, so I won't even give my opinion on this.
    In the city of Boulder, if you have a CCW, it is OK to carry a loaded handgun while carrying CONCEALED and OK to carry a loaded hangun while carrying OPEN. If you DO NOT have a CCW, it is UNLAWFUL to carry a loaded handgun OPEN, and of course, illegal to carry concealed at all (with exceptions provided for home/vehicle/business/etc statutes outside the scope of this email). Further, it is UNLAWFUL to carry a handgun CONCEALED OR OPEN WITHIN THE CITY OF BOULDER in ANY parks or open space. The officer and myself were both surprised at this last part. I asked something like "So, I couldn't carry concealed with a CCW in Chataqua?" and was advised no, it's within the city of Boulder. I then asked about the hiking trails on Flagstaff mountain (like around the halfway house trail up there that has "no firearms" plaquards posted) and she said that shouldn't be inside the city and said there should be a list online of what parks/open spaces were within Boulder City.

    These are the opinions of the Boulder District Attorney's office as received by Officer Versstaedy (spelling?) and relayed to me, at my request for clarification. I offer this DA's office interpretation to you in good faith for your information so that you can feel comfortable that you are operating within the law when you OC with a loaded handgun within the city of Boulder. I have not included any opinion of mine or the officer relaying this information to me inside this email. Of course, you should always verify any questions you might have with a credible source and encourage you to verify this yourself if you have any doubt. I hope this was helpful.
    CCW permits are valid everywhere in Colorado, including municipal parks and everywhere else in Boulder. This guy is full of you know what. Full state preemption on CC. Only government buildings with metal detectors at the entrance can prohibit CC. And, of course, appropriate Federal laws.
    "For any man who sheds his blood with me this day shall be my brother...And gentlemen now abed shall think themselves accursed, they were not here, and hold their manhoods cheap whilst any speaks who fought with us on Crispin's day." Henry V

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Castle Rock, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    392

    Post imported post

    TheDuellist wrote:
    A loaded handgun is having ammunition in the magazine and the magazine in the magazine well, with or without a round in the chamber. I did not get any clarification regarding revolvers and having a hammer on an empty cylinder, so I won't even give my opinion on this.
    This is also contradicted by state statues:

    CRS 33-6-125. Possession of a loaded firearm in a motor vehicle.
    It is unlawful for any person, except a person authorized by law or by the division, to possess or have under his control any firearm, other than a pistol or revolver, in or on any motor vehicle unless the chamber of such firearm is unloaded....
    Although CRS 336-125 is specifying a long gun, the chamber of the gun, as it relates to a semi-automatic handgun for this purpose, is the same. Both can contain ammunition, without actually having one in the chamber ready to fire. Pulling the trigger of a rifle or shotgun that has rounds in the detachable mag, permanent mag or tube will not result in a discharge just as pulling the trigger of a semi-auto pistol with a loaded mag but an unloaded chamber will not. Additionally, the statute's title is "Possession of a loaded firearm...". This isn't definitive, but it is further evidence of what the legislature deems a "loaded firearm" to be.

    In contradiction, US CODE: Title 49,46505. Carrying a weapon or explosive on an aircraft:
    (a) Definition.— In this section, “loaded firearm” means a starter gun or a weapon designed or converted to expel a projectile through an explosive, that has a cartridge, a detonator, or powder in the chamber, magazine, cylinder, or clip.
    But that is a federal reg for a specific situation. I also found a California Appellate Case, People vs. Clark 1996, stating that:

    The term "loaded" has a commonly understood meaning: "to put a load or charge in (a device or piece of equipment) a gun" or "to put a load on or in a carrier, device, or container; esp: to insert the cartridge into the chamber of a firearm." (Webster's New Collegiate Dict (1976) p. 674) Under the commonly understood meaning of the term "loaded", a firearm is "loaded" when a shell or cartridge has been placed into a position from which it can be fired;
    Again, not specifically relevant, but it's interesting to see what other courts have said. I would think that this requires further study. Thoughts anyone?

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Boulder, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    26

    Post imported post

    Ok, I have been on the phone with the officer that went out of her way to get me accurate information re: the subject of my original post in this thread. I wanted to ensure I didn't misunderstand anything. I did write one thing down wrong in my notes, and subsequently, the original post; the reading of the law came from the city of Boulder attorney's office not the Boulder County district attorney's office. However, the officer did reiterate that what I wrote down regarding it being unlawful to carry concealed within parks & open spaces inside Boulder was correct. Please be advised, this is not this officer's opinion, nor my opinion. This is the city attorney's office's opinion. We both have opinions on this knowing CRS 18-12-214, however, I dont think it's appropriate to put in my or her opinion in this, but only the interpretation that the officer worked hard to get.

    I'm not arguing the interpretation is correct, or would stand in court, but this is the information I received and wanted to pass it on unaltered. I don't know what to say about the definition of a loaded handgun. You present a good argument, and while my *intuition* would consider a loaded magazine in the magazine well as "loaded," you make a good case for the "chambered round" condition.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855

    Post imported post

    TheDuellist wrote:
    Ok, I have been on the phone with the officer that went out of her way to get me accurate information re: the subject of my original post in this thread. I wanted to ensure I didn't misunderstand anything. I did write one thing down wrong in my notes, and subsequently, the original post; the reading of the law came from the city of Boulder attorney's office not the Boulder County district attorney's office. However, the officer did reiterate that what I wrote down regarding it being unlawful to carry concealed within parks & open spaces inside Boulder was correct. Please be advised, this is not this officer's opinion, nor my opinion. This is the city attorney's office's opinion. We both have opinions on this knowing CRS 18-12-214, however, I dont think it's appropriate to put in my or her opinion in this, but only the interpretation that the officer worked hard to get.

    I'm not arguing the interpretation is correct, or would stand in court, but this is the information I received and wanted to pass it on unaltered. I don't know what to say about the definition of a loaded handgun. You present a good argument, and while my *intuition* would consider a loaded magazine in the magazine well as "loaded," you make a good case for the "chambered round" condition.
    The ordinance you were quoted probably was true before preemption. It is invalid now. It cannot be enforced without the risk of civil suit for false arrest. The city attorney is wrong. You would be doing him a favor by letting him know. CC is completely legal in Boulder--everywhere, with the same exceptions as any place else in CO. If it went to court, the judge would dismiss it immediately based upon 18-12-214 and you would have standing for a civil suit under several violations of your civil rights. Leftwing towns like Boulder often lie about an ordinance with no weight of law. They figure you'll believe them. If you push the point, they will back off, as no DA is going to file a loser that will be tossed immediately. But it keeps the liberal ******** happy if they can deprive you of your right to carry because you don't take the time to investigate the facts. Not just in CO, many other threads like this in the forum. They had a sign at Garden of the Gods saying firearms were prohibited. A call to the commissioner of parks got it removed. But this is the Springs, not the PDR of Boulder. There, it will take firmer action to make them obey the law.
    "For any man who sheds his blood with me this day shall be my brother...And gentlemen now abed shall think themselves accursed, they were not here, and hold their manhoods cheap whilst any speaks who fought with us on Crispin's day." Henry V

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    65

    Post imported post

    The whole "cannot carry loaded open without a CCW" also gets me going. WTF is that?

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Aurora, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    116

    Post imported post

    Boulder is a haven of ex hippies still getting over the residual effects of LSD.

    I live in Colorado and refuse for any reason to go to Boulder for anything.

    The city council, the judges and lawyers are all a bunch of wackos.

    Unless you have a signed avidavit from the District Attorney as to your rights, don't trust them witha dead turtle. They'll sue you for it or lock you up. You don't even have rights in your own car in Boulder.

    That's a city no one would miss in Colorado.:shock:

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    65

    Post imported post

    while I'll certainly agree (I live in Lafayette), Denwego had TOTALLY different experiences in boulder while here.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Houston, Texas, USA
    Posts
    276

    Post imported post

    Yeah, this city attorney clearly has no grasp of the status of preemption in Colorado, both by statute and by precedent. It would be one thing to still be ignorant of open carry laws and need to research them, but the legality of CCing in a park with a permit is spelled out in extremely plain and obvious terms. Since I'm no longer a Colorado resident, I had to turn in my CHP after I left, which means when I return to CO to visit, I would have to OC everywhere outside my car. And whenever I might stop in Boulder, I'll be OCing like always.

    If and when I come back to visit, I'll be sure to let everyone know so we can have an OC dinner!

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,187
    Thought I'd necro this instead of starting a new thread. This is about 3 years old. Anyone have new/current info? I was at a hiking trailhead within Boulder city yesterday where the only entrance was posted "No Firearms". If it were just me, I'd probably feel fine with just bear spray. However if I had my kids or dogs, any of which is basically 40 lbs of live bait, I'd want something else for backup particularly in the wind.

  14. #14
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855
    Even El Paso County had outdated 'no firearms' signs at Garden of the Gods. When notified, the Parks Department took them down immediately. Boulder cannot ban firearms except as specifically detailed in CRSA inside of municipal buildings with metal detectors in place, or schools, of course. The same applies today as back in 2008: their ordinance/signs are unlawful and cannot be enforced. That the leftwing politicians of the city would truly love to be anti-gun, full state preemption checkmates them at every step.
    "For any man who sheds his blood with me this day shall be my brother...And gentlemen now abed shall think themselves accursed, they were not here, and hold their manhoods cheap whilst any speaks who fought with us on Crispin's day." Henry V

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,187
    Quote Originally Posted by Gunslinger View Post
    Boulder cannot ban firearms except as specifically detailed in CRSA inside of municipal buildings with metal detectors in place, or schools, of course. The same applies today as back in 2008: their ordinance/signs are unlawful and cannot be enforced.
    Can someone point me to the right CRSA on signs? I.e. does it say "buildings"? The trailhead I was at, there was no other way in. There was barbed wire around to keep cows out and a locked vehicle gate. The only entrance had the big trail info sign including the note against firearms.

    I read the Boulder muni code and saw that an affirmative defense was something like "engaged in self-defense in accordance with state statutes". So I think CC'ing with a permit in defense of my kids from four legged beasties, or the occaisional two legged predator that's been known to prowl trails is legal. OCing to be a schmuck or b/c I feel like it, isn't in accordance with self defense in state statutes and may draw more trouble than it's worth.

    Reality is, as rare as dealing with an obnoxious coyote or a hungry mountain lion is, I think it's more common than a LEO wandering around a 1300 ft/mi elevation gain off duty and seeing me print. Someone hiking behind me if I happen to uncover, slightly more common, but not a huge issue. If I have to discharge in lawful self-defense, I still believe the law will be on my side.

  16. #16
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855
    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.

    If you're going to CC, don't worry about it. Full state preemption everywhere, including Denver. If the sign doesn't specifically say "open carry" it is uneforceable as it is too vague.
    Last edited by Gunslinger; 06-07-2011 at 04:04 PM.
    "For any man who sheds his blood with me this day shall be my brother...And gentlemen now abed shall think themselves accursed, they were not here, and hold their manhoods cheap whilst any speaks who fought with us on Crispin's day." Henry V

  17. #17
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by mahkagari View Post
    Thought I'd necro this instead of starting a new thread. This is about 3 years old. Anyone have new/current info? I was at a hiking trailhead within Boulder city yesterday where the only entrance was posted "No Firearms". If it were just me, I'd probably feel fine with just bear spray. However if I had my kids or dogs, any of which is basically 40 lbs of live bait, I'd want something else for backup particularly in the wind.
    That's ok. This has been covered elsewhere, but is worth mentioning again:

    Very few places are legally allowed to post "No Firearms" signs here in Colorado, and they're mostly limited to federal buildings, court and similar public buildings with a metal detector at all entrances, and private property, the latter of which range from a person's domicile to any and all business (whether mom and pop stores or the mall).

    Over the last several years, dozens, if not hundreds of "No Firearms" signs at park entrances have either been replaced with "No Open Carry of Firearms" or removed altogether.

    Boulder is behind schedule.

    Garden of the Gods Park used to have "No Firearms" signs. They don't any more, and I've gone hiking there many times while open carrying. Same with Palmer Park, also here in the Springs.
    Last edited by since9; 06-08-2011 at 01:56 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.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Longmont, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    39

    The People's Republic of Boulder

    The People's Republic of Boulder, I believe leaves the signs up so that uninformed people, will not carry in the parks, it seems their opinion is, that even if their laws are preempted, they will still do a BOSS HOGG and buffalo anyone they can into believing the laws are legal. {This is just my opinion.} I don't know how far they might be willing to take things if they believe they can get away with it.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Thornton, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    113
    Quote Originally Posted by Gunslinger View Post
    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.

    If you're going to CC, don't worry about it. Full state preemption everywhere, including Denver. If the sign doesn't specifically say "open carry" it is uneforceable as it is too vague.
    I'm curious if you or anyone here knows. Take for example a park with no fences, so you can walk into the park any direction you want, how often do they have to post signs stating that open carry isn't allowed so that it fits with this statute. I think we would all agree two or three signs somewhere in the park doesn't constitute every entrance. Do they have to have signs every 5', 10' 20'? Does anyone know of a park like this where signs are posted and that it fits within C.R.S. 29-11.7-104 so that open carry isn't allowed?

    Edit to add: The statue also doesn't say that it must be posted at "all" entrances it just says "government shall post signs at the public entrances to the building or specific area" are there any cases where the courts have ruled that it must be all?
    Last edited by Bebop; 06-12-2011 at 11:11 PM.

  20. #20
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Bebop View Post
    I'm curious if you or anyone here knows. Take for example a park with no fences, so you can walk into the park any direction you want, how often do they have to post signs stating that open carry isn't allowed so that it fits with this statute. I think we would all agree two or three signs somewhere in the park doesn't constitute every entrance. Do they have to have signs every 5', 10' 20'? Does anyone know of a park like this where signs are posted and that it fits within C.R.S. 29-11.7-104 so that open carry isn't allowed?
    Don't know. I know that in Louisiana, if you have a vicious dog behind a fence, signs must be posted every 20'.

    Edit to add: The statue also doesn't say that it must be posted at "all" entrances it just says "government shall post signs at the public entrances to the building or specific area" are there any cases where the courts have ruled that it must be all?
    It seems that the only places where signs must be posted, fence or not, is at the "public" entrances. Garden of the Gods park only has a very short section of fence on the north side, and that's to keep the bighorn sheep in the fenced-in area. Otherwise, there are no other fences. Still, it has two well-defined public entrances, and thankfully, no signs concerning firearms. Similarly, Ute park has only one public entrance, but it has perhaps a dozen locations whereby people from surrounding neighborhoods and a school can gain access to the park. Also thankfully, no signs about firearms!

    I'm wondering if Bouldereich's actions of keeping up signs without any legal support from state law constitutes a mere nuisance, or if it's actually criminal for them to do so?

    Is anyone aware of any provision under state law which makes it illegal for any city official or agency to falsely inform or willingly mislead the public?

    If so, sending a simple letter to the state's attorney general (if not a few key newspapers) citing that statute, along with C.R.S. concerning OC, and pictures of the offending signs, should be enough to kick things into higher gear.
    Last edited by since9; 06-18-2011 at 09:37 PM.
    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.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,187
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    I'm wondering if Bouldereich's actions of keeping up signs without any legal support from state law constitutes a mere nuisance, or if it's actually criminal for them to do so?

    Is anyone aware of any provision under state law which makes it illegal for any city official or agency to falsely inform or willingly mislead the public?
    Nuisance or impossible to prove, I'd say. E.g Thornton's law that requires liquor stores to post signs that in essence say "It's illegal to carry an illegal gun illegally (but we won't tell you that your gun is probably legal here)". In Thornton, they're simply stating the law. If you want to try to prove "intimidation", go for it. In Boulder's case, they're within their rights to post at "entrances", just as the Northglenn(?) park above. Whether more people will shy away from an unenforceable posting is a different question. I don't think there's any state law against a municipality posting unenforceable ordinances.

  22. #22
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855
    Clearly there's not. Enforcing them is where they fall on their faces. If it goes to trial, a simple motion for dismissal solves the issue for you, but not them. They could be faced with a malicious prosecution lawsuit. Usually they will push up to the time you tell the Town Attorney or DA 'see you in court.' Then they "find" their error.
    "For any man who sheds his blood with me this day shall be my brother...And gentlemen now abed shall think themselves accursed, they were not here, and hold their manhoods cheap whilst any speaks who fought with us on Crispin's day." Henry V

  23. #23
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by mahkagari View Post
    I don't think there's any state law against a municipality posting unenforceable ordinances.
    Perhaps I'll have a talk with my friend in the state legislature about a bill requiring municipalities to remove signs running contrary to state law. How about within 30 days of written notification, else the fines will ensue?

    Signs are communications to the public. If they're telling the public one thing, when state law says otherwise, they're intentionally misleading the public. That's contrary to the interests of both the public and the state.

    Same goes for Boulder LEOs' harassment of law-abiding citizens lawfully carrying their firearms: It's contrary to the interests of both the public and the state.
    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.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Thornton, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    113
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    Perhaps I'll have a talk with my friend in the state legislature about a bill requiring municipalities to remove signs running contrary to state law. How about within 30 days of written notification, else the fines will ensue?

    Signs are communications to the public. If they're telling the public one thing, when state law says otherwise, they're intentionally misleading the public. That's contrary to the interests of both the public and the state.

    Same goes for Boulder LEOs' harassment of law-abiding citizens lawfully carrying their firearms: It's contrary to the interests of both the public and the state.
    It would be interesting to see if the bill would get passed. I can't think of a downside to a bill reacquiring that they don't have signs posted contrary to state law. I would however think that IF any law like that was to get passed you would have to prove that the city was putting the signs up intentionally to try to keep people from doing what the law says they can. Not saying it is right just saying I think most laws that are written so that the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to show intent. Otherwise the judge may just order them to remove the signs and you wouldn't get compensated. If you objective is to just get them to take down the signs then it would be a win but it seems like an expensive way of going about doing it.

    Why not also have a law that says it is illegal for LEO's to give out false legal info. Example if a LEO where to come up to you and say "It is illegal to open carry in the state of Colorado"

  25. #25
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Bebop View Post
    It would be interesting to see if the bill would get passed. I can't think of a downside to a bill reacquiring that they don't have signs posted contrary to state law. I would however think that IF any law like that was to get passed you would have to prove that the city was putting the signs up intentionally to try to keep people from doing what the law says they can.
    Thanks. However, why would intent matter? If the law says no signs contrary to law, the only issue would be whether it's contrary to law. If it is, first time might be a warning, and they have to take the sign down. If they repeat the infraction, the state general attorney would press charges.

    Not saying it is right just saying I think most laws that are written so that the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to show intent.
    The state would be the plaintiff. Whoever put up the sign would be the defendants.

    Otherwise the judge may just order them to remove the signs and you wouldn't get compensated.
    Why would I be expecting compensation? All I'm concerned with is striking down illegal signs which infringe upon my Constitutional rights.

    If you objective is to just get them to take down the signs then it would be a win but it seems like an expensive way of going about doing it.
    I think it would be as simple as sending the state attorney's office a picture, lat/lon coordinates of its location, and the date/time the photo was taken. The AG dispatches a state trooper to verify. Upon verification, the AG sends a letter to the local governing body. If the body complies, with evidence, the matter is dropped. If they fight it, they're charged with violating the state law, and it goes to court.

    Will the sequence of events described above cost some money? Yes. However, after one or two of the most uppity locales is fed their shirt, the word gets around and it ceases being a widespread problem. I think this approach would be fairly inexpensive, overall, and just a few pennies would come out of my pocket for reporting the infraction.

    Just don't report it to the local authorities...

    Why not also have a law that says it is illegal for LEO's to give out false legal info. Example if a LEO where to come up to you and say "It is illegal to open carry in the state of Colorado"
    Excellent idea! Better yet, how about a law making it illegal for an LEO to act as legal counsel for another without having passed the state bar exam?

    Oh, wait! That one's already on the books... I suppose the first question in response to an LEO giving out bad legal advice is to ask, "Are you an attorney?"
    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.

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
  •