SatoriAxiom, I think this is where you take into account the fact that OC is constitutionally protected. You cannot be convicted of a crime for engaging in not only legal, but constitutionally protected activities: The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property...shall be called in question; [but not concealed]. Bear arms, defense of person, not concealed = Open Carry.
There is no guarantee that some rouge LEO won't decide to do something ridiculous like cite you for disorderly conduct for OC, but I've not heard of that happening to anyone in this forum and it would almost certainly get thrown out in or before court.
As a side note, there was a CO Supreme Court case (Robertson v. City & County of Denver, 874 P.2d 325 (Colo. 1994)) wherein the Court declined to establish that the right to keep and bear arms under the CO Constitution was a fundamental right:
In conclusion, we hold that the trial court erred in holding that the right to bear arms in self-defense, guaranteed by article II, section 13, is a fundamental right. Such a determination is not necessary in analyzing a constitutional challenge premised on article II, section 13.
That is the logic that has been relied upon for all of Denver's unconstitutional ordaninces including the upholding of their OC ban in 2004 by Judge Meyers:
It is noted that the State's interest in regulation of firearms is based in part on a desire to protect the constitutional right of a person to keep and bear arms. See C.R.S. §§ 18-12-201(e), 29-11.7- 101(a)(b) (2003). This right, however, is not absolute and does not automatically preempt firearm regulation. Contrary to the declarations in Senate Bill 25, the right to bear arms has not been held by the courts to be a fundamental right. See Trinen, 53 P.3d at 757 (citing People v. Young, 859 P.2d 814 (Colo. 1993)). Moreover, the right is specifically limited where the constitutional provision states that "nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons." See Art. ii, § 13, Colo. Const. Firearm regulations promulgated by the State or a local municipality under the home rule amendment may coexist with the constitutional right to keep and bear arms so long as such regulations are a reasonable exercise of the governments' police powers. Fee, e.g., Robertson v. City and County of Denver, 874 P. 2d 325 (Colo. 1994) (upholding Denver's assault weapons ban); Trine n, 53 P. 3d 754; People v. Pflugbeil, 834 P.2d 843 (Colo. App. 1992) (order depriving mental patient of right to weapons).My point in stating the above is the impact of the Nordyke v. King case that was just decided by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Relying on Heller, the court in Nordyke not only held that the 2nd amendment is incorporated against the states, but that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right. They held:
We therefore conclude that the right to keep and bear arms is “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.” Colonial revolutionaries, the Founders, and a host of commentators and lawmakers living during the first one hundred years of the Republic all insisted on the fundamental nature of the right. It has long been regarded as the “true palladium of liberty.” Colonists relied on it to assert and to win their independence, and the victorious Union sought to prevent a recalcitrant South from abridging it less than a century later. The crucial role this deeply rooted right has played in our birth and history compels us to recognize that it is indeed fundamental, that it is necessary to the Anglo-American conception of ordered liberty that we have inherited.17 We are therefore persuaded that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment and applies it against the states and local governments.So, we now have a situation where the foundation of many of the prohibitions (like Denver's OC ban) or potential charges (like disorderly conduct) is crumbling away. If the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental protected right, recognized in Colorado or incorporated against Colorado by the Feds, then there are very few restrictions that could be imposed on that right. In Heller, Justice Scalia implied the use of the strict scrutiny method of reviewing restrictions on 2A, the same method applied to the 1A.
All this to say that you are good to OC and that a disorderly conduct charge, absent some other circumstance, would be ridiculous.