Open carry at State Capitol Tea Party?

imported post

I badly want to open carry at the Tea Party next week (I know others do, too). I have my CCW, so I can get the gun there, but I'm aware of the Denver prohibition against open carry. I strongly suspect that the Capitol property itself is not part of the City of Denver. It's policed by the State Patrol, and there is no prohibition against firearms in the building itself as far as I can tell. Apparently there were metal detectors set up after 9/11, but they were removed. I found a Denver Post article from 2007 (after the shooting in the Capitol building) that seems to indicate there are no metal detectors currently installed (not that I plan on going inside anyway).

Any thoughts? In general, isn't it reasonable to think that state property isn't annexed to the City it's in? Maybe it's a pipe dream...

imported post

Well, I think I answered my own question.

CRS 18-12-105 (1)(c) says a misdemeanor is committed if "Without legal authority, (a person) carries, brings, or has in such person's possession a firearm or any explosive, incendiary, or other dangerous device on the property of or within any building in which the chambers, galleries, or offices of the general assembly, or either house thereof, are located, or in which a legislative hearing or meeting is being or is to be conducted, or in which the official office of any member, officer, or employee of the general assembly is located."

Since the title of 18-12-105 is "Unlawfully carrying a concealed weapon - unlawful possession of weapons" I assumed the whole article applied only to concealed weapons, but that doesn't appear to be the case.

Any idea what "legal authority" means?

It IS clear that carrying concealed inside the Capitol is fine, as long as there aren't permanently-installed metal detectors.

imported post

Dynamite Rabbit wrote:

Well, I think I answered my own question.

CRS 18-12-105 (1)(c) says a misdemeanor is committed if "Without legal authority, (a person) carries, brings, or has in such person's possession a firearm or any explosive, incendiary, or other dangerous device on the property of or within any building in which the chambers, galleries, or offices of the general assembly, or either house thereof, are located, or in which a legislative hearing or meeting is being or is to be conducted, or in which the official office of any member, officer, or employee of the general assembly is located."

Since the title of 18-12-105 is "Unlawfully carrying a concealed weapon - unlawful possession of weapons" I assumed the whole article applied only to concealed weapons, but that doesn't appear to be the case.

Any idea what "legal authority" means?

It IS clear that carrying concealed inside the Capitol is fine, as long as there aren't permanently-installed metal detectors.

Click to expand...

IMNAL, but both OC and CC are prohibited.

OC is prohibited because a person "Without legal authority... carries...a firearm... on the property of or within any building in which the chambers galleries or offices of the general assembly... are located. There is no specific "legal authority" to OC. The state statute preempts Denver, which of course also prohibits OC, albiet unconstitutionally.

CC is also prohibited because a CCW permit does not grant general "legal authority" to carry/possess a firearm, notwithstanding Denver. It only allows concealing in most areas where it is otherwise prohibited to conceal. If a permit were always to carry/possess a firearm at all, that permit would be granting "legal authority" because without the permit you could not carry, period.

EDIT: One additional item:

The operative word "use" isn't entirely clear, but it seems clear that the idea state law prohibits it. The prior sentence by itself seems to indicate that a permitee can carry anywhere outside of the specific exceptions listed, and among them are not the state Capitol. I think this argument is only defeated when one understands the flow of rights:

1. Carrying a firearm is generally protected (Art II, Sec 13), but CC is not
2. Carrying a firearm on/in the capitol is prohibited (CRS 18-12-105 (1)(c))
3. Persons granted a CCW may CC, outside of the exceptions (CRS 18-12-201-216)

That's my take, for what it's worth.

imported post

CRS 18-12-105 (2) states (referring to section 1) (and this makes CC legal as far as I can tell):

(2) It shall not be an offense if the defendant was:
(a) A person in his or her own dwelling or place of business or on property owned or under his or her control at the time of the act of carrying; or
(b) A person in a private automobile or other private means of conveyance who carries a weapon for lawful protection of such person's or another's person or property while traveling; or
(c) A person who, at the time of carrying a concealed weapon, held a valid written permit to carry a concealed weapon issued pursuant to section 18-12-105.1, as it existed prior to its repeal, or, if the weapon involved was a handgun, held a valid permit to carry a concealed handgun or a temporary emergency permit issued pursuant to part 2 of this article; except that it shall be an offense under this section if the person was carrying a concealed handgun in violation of the provisions of section 18-12-214; or
(d) A peace officer, as described in section 16-2.5-101, C.R.S., when carrying a weapon in conformance with the policy of the employing agency as provided in section 16-2.5-101 (2), C.R.S.; or
(e) (Deleted by amendment, L. 2003, p. 1624, § 46, effective August 6, 2003.)
(f) A United States probation officer or a United States pretrial services officer while on duty and serving in the state of Colorado under the authority of rules and regulations promulgated by the judicial conference of the United States.

imported post

Dynamite Rabbit wrote:

CRS 18-12-105 (2) states (referring to section 1) (and this makes CC legal as far as I can tell):

(2) It shall not be an offense if the defendant was:
(a) A person in his or her own dwelling or place of business or on property owned or under his or her control at the time of the act of carrying; or
(b) A person in a private automobile or other private means of conveyance who carries a weapon for lawful protection of such person's or another's person or property while traveling; or
(c) A person who, at the time of carrying a concealed weapon, held a valid written permit to carry a concealed weapon issued pursuant to section 18-12-105.1, as it existed prior to its repeal, or, if the weapon involved was a handgun, held a valid permit to carry a concealed handgun or a temporary emergency permit issued pursuant to part 2 of this article; except that it shall be an offense under this section if the person was carrying a concealed handgun in violation of the provisions of section 18-12-214; or
(d) A peace officer, as described in section 16-2.5-101, C.R.S., when carrying a weapon in conformance with the policy of the employing agency as provided in section 16-2.5-101 (2), C.R.S.; or
(e) (Deleted by amendment, L. 2003, p. 1624, § 46, effective August 6, 2003.)
(f) A United States probation officer or a United States pretrial services officer while on duty and serving in the state of Colorado under the authority of rules and regulations promulgated by the judicial conference of the United States.

Click to expand...

Correct. If you brought a gun onto/into the State Capitol, you wouldn't be charged with violating CRS 18-12-105 (b): Unlawful carrying of a concealed weapon. You'd be charged with violating CRS 18-12-105 (c) regarding the general assembly which you quoted above.

imported post

Am I misreading this? I think (2)(c) negates all of section (1), making CC legal at the Capitol.

Here's all of 18-12-105:



18-12-105. Unlawfully carrying a concealed weapon - unlawful possession of weapons.
(1) A person commits a class 2 misdemeanor if such person knowingly and unlawfully:
(a) Carries a knife concealed on or about his or her person; or
(b) Carries a firearm concealed on or about his or her person; or
(c) Without legal authority, carries, brings, or has in such person's possession a firearm or any explosive, incendiary, or other dangerous device on the property of or within any building in which the chambers, galleries, or offices of the general assembly, or either house thereof, are located, or in which a legislative hearing or meeting is being or is to be conducted, or in which the official office of any member, officer, or employee of the general assembly is located.
(d) (Deleted by amendment, L. 93, p. 964, § 1, effective July 1, 1993.)


(2) It shall not be an offense if the defendant was:
(a) A person in his or her own dwelling or place of business or on property owned or under his or her control at the time of the act of carrying; or
(b) A person in a private automobile or other private means of conveyance who carries a weapon for lawful protection of such person's or another's person or property while traveling; or
(c) A person who, at the time of carrying a concealed weapon, held a valid written permit to carry a concealed weapon issued pursuant to section 18-12-105.1, as it existed prior to its repeal, or, if the weapon involved was a handgun, held a valid permit to carry a concealed handgun or a temporary emergency permit issued pursuant to part 2 of this article; except that it shall be an offense under this section if the person was carrying a concealed handgun in violation of the provisions of section 18-12-214; or
(d) A peace officer, as described in section 16-2.5-101, C.R.S., when carrying a weapon in conformance with the policy of the employing agency as provided in section 16-2.5-101 (2), C.R.S.; or
(e) (Deleted by amendment, L. 2003, p. 1624, § 46, effective August 6, 2003.)
(f) A United States probation officer or a United States pretrial services officer while on duty and serving in the state of Colorado under the authority of rules and regulations promulgated by the judicial conference of the United States.

imported post

I don't think you're misreading anything. The statues aren't crystal clear, but I think the intent is to prevent the general carrying of firearms, open or concealed, on the premises listed.

The CCW permit does not grant general authority to carry a firearm. It only allows someone who is already allowed to carry a firearm to conceal it. Someone who is already allowed to carry a firearm (and by that I mean openly) is not allowed to bring that firearm into the Capitol. Neither is a person who may now conceal it allowed to do so because the permit did not grant a new right.

Think of it this way: Laws don't establish rights; they establish restrictions. The CO constitution established (or more properly, recognized) the right of people to bear arms in defense of themselves, but not concealed. That makes OC a protected right, leaving CC subject to statute. Then the state established several restrictions on carrying through law: "No concealed carry (generally)" and "No guns at the Capital". Then they established a specific defense to "No CC" which is the permit. There is no new legal authority to carry a firearm generally or to carry that firearm onto the State capital specifically.

imported post

It seems to me that the statute says:

(1) It's a crime

(c) to carry a firearm in the Capitol building

-but-

(2) it's not a crime

(c) if you have a concealed carry permit and aren't carrying in violation of 18-12-214 (restrictions on concealed carry, such as federal property, schools, etc. -- no mention of the Capitol building or property).

imported post

I found a page about Capitol security. There's no date on it, but it sounds like the metal detectors are still there. I'm pretty sure that the cowards in the Legislature made them permanent.

http://www.state.co.us/gov_dir/leg_dir/CapSecurity/CapitolSecurityProtocols.pdf

imported post

Thanks Flyer22. That settles the question about carrying inside the capital using the "screening" rationale.

imported post

Dynamite Rabbit, I just discovered something that should have been totally obvious to me, and probably was to you. While the CCW doesn't grant any new "legal authority", it totally exempts the permitte from violations to 18-12-105(c). I was so hung-up on the "legal authority" issue that I overlooked the obvious. I feel like a complete moron for that one. Sorry!

imported post

I think I'll check inside the Capitol next Wednesday, but I think you're right, Flyer22. Here's a Rocky Mountain News article from January, 2008.


http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/jan/05/capitol-security-aims-to-balance-access-safety/

imported post

centsi wrote:

Dynamite Rabbit, I just discovered something that should have been totally obvious to me, and probably was to you.  While the CCW doesn't grant any new "legal authority", it totally exempts the permitte from violations to 18-12-105(c).  I was so hung-up on the "legal authority" issue that I overlooked the obvious.  I feel like a complete moron for that one.  Sorry!

Click to expand...

No problem -- this legalese is something else. No wonder lawyers make the big bucks!

Sounds like it's a moot point as far as the building goes, but I think it's OK to carry (concealed) outside. I have before and plan to next week.

imported post

So now that I've convinced myself of what everyone else probably already knew, the question is back to OC with a CCW permit. Since you can't be in violation of 18-12-105(c) if you have a permit, can you OC on STATE property around the capital with a permit?

First off, if you can you'd be subject to legal detainment to check your ID & permit because without a permit you'd be in violation of 18-12-105(c). You could also be accused of violating CRS 18-8-102: Obstructing government operations, simply because you could pose an "obstacle" to legislator at the statehouse, although the charge is BS, especially if they are not in session at the time.

Honestly, I can't think of anything that would prevent you, technically, from OCing there assuming that the Capital grounds are State property. Anyone else have any thoughts?

imported post

18-12-105 (1)(c) prohibits carry on the property, so I think it's out. That's exactly what I was thinking, though, assuming it's not part of the City of Denver (and you'd have to think it's not).

The other part is, (2)(c) specifies carrying a concealed weapon. Added together, I think OC is out on the whole property.

imported post

Dynamite Rabbit wrote:

18-12-105 (1)(c) prohibits carry on the property, so I think it's out. That's exactly what I was thinking, though, assuming it's not part of the City of Denver (and you'd have to think it's not).

The other part is, (2)(c) specifies carrying a concealed weapon. Added together, I think OC is out on the whole property.

Click to expand...

It really depends on sentence construction, and we can use another statue and it's exemptions to help: The first part of 18-12-105 (2)(c) deals with the old CCW permits and can be removed: "... at the time of carrying a concealed weapon, held a valid written permit to carry a concealed weapon issued pursuant to section 18-12-105.1, as it existed prior to its repeal". If we get rid of that part, we can read the sentence as it should be applied: The other statue that provides evidence for this condensed reading is CRS 18-12-105.5: Unlawfully carrying a weapon - unlawful possession of weapons - school, college, or university grounds. This statue actually separates the two defenses into separate subsections:Of course 18-12-214 (3) goes on to continue to prohibit CC on k-12 schools, but this statute better explains that the weapon in question need not be concealed to fall under the exemptions detailed in both statues.

The word "concealed" does not appear in the operative part of 18-12-105.5 (3)(d.5) or the operative part of 18-12-105 (2)(c). Interestingly, it does appear in the latter part of each sentence, "except that it shall be an offense under this section if the person was carrying a concealed handgun in violation of the provisions of section 18-12-214 (3); or" which makes sense because the prohibitions laid out in 18-12-214 (3) only apply to CC.

EDIT: Also good to note that according to my theory, the OC of long guns would not be allowed.

imported post

I think I see what you're saying, but my head just exploded, so I need to chew on it a bit. :shock:

imported post

Dynamite Rabbit wrote:

I think I see what you're saying, but my head just exploded, so I need to chew on it a bit. :shock:

Click to expand...

Yeah, me too. Maybe someone else here can take a crack at this thread. Even if I'm right, I think you'd get arrested for OC there, and probably convicted of something unless you spent thousands of dollars and years on appeals. However, I do think that OC at the State Capital during a protest would be the pinnacle of citizenship.