• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Fort Collins - Meetup and Question

SatoriAxiom

New member
Joined
Apr 9, 2009
Messages
7
Location
, ,
imported post

First, anyone in town (or surrounding area) want to get together some time?

Second:

So, I took my pistol class last week to qualify for a CCW permit (which I have now started the wait for . . . day 6 argh!), and one of the guys there (instructor) was an ex-LEO. I asked him about OC, and he said that it is legal (which I knew from coming here), but he said that there would be a significant risk of getting charged with "menacing". I know that the wording of the law states that in order for OC to qualify for "menacing" it must be "in a manner calculated to alarm", but I'm not so sure how that would work out in court. Scenario:

I'm out OCing minding my own business (I'm pretty 'normal' looking and mostly dress in jeans, t-shirts, and some kind of outdoor jacket (NorthFace, Mountain Hardward, and the like)), and I get approached by an LEO who is there because someone called in a 'man with a gun'. He proceeds to charge me with menacing and confiscates my firearm. Fast forward to the court date, and we're before the judge. At this point it would seem that whether or not I was menacing is a discretionary call by the LEO, and in that case its kind of my word against his. It would seem like the judge would be inclined to side with the LEO, no? I mean, I know that it is my right to carry and I in now way intend to be a menace to anyone (except perhaps a criminal), but the judge is not in my head, so he doesn't know my intentions.

Anyway, I've been out OCing several times now to various stores and such (Sooper, B&N, some restaurants, etc, etc), and have never had a problem. I did have the manager and two employees in B&N have and extra long conversation with me about languages, but no one said anything about the gun on my hip. When he first came up, the manager handed the clerk a small scrap of paper with a note on it, and she laughed at him (I was thinking at the time that it may have mentioned that I have a gun, but who knows). After the class, this possibility of 'menacing' has become a concern, so I'd like to hear some feedback if you guys have the time.

Wow, I've written a small novel here. Sorry if I rambled a bit.

Thanks in advance for your time.
 

Dynamite Rabbit

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
220
Location
Longmont, CO, ,
imported post

I don't think a charge of felony menacing would EVER stand up in court. The CRS (18-3-206) reads:

(1) A person commits the crime of menacing if, by any threat or physical action, he or she knowingly places or attempts to place another person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury. Menacing is a class 3 misdemeanor, but, it is a class 5 felony if committed:

(a) By the use of a deadly weapon or any article used or fashioned in a manner to cause a person to reasonably believe that the article is a deadly weapon; or

(b) By the person representing verbally or otherwise that he or she is armed with a deadly weapon.

In the annotations, it says that felony menacing is a specific intent crime. I assume that means that it has to be intentional, which clearly doesn't apply to an open carrier. I've never heard of an open-carrier being charged with menacing.
 

SatoriAxiom

New member
Joined
Apr 9, 2009
Messages
7
Location
, ,
imported post

Thanks for the great reply.

What about "Disorderly conduct" then?

C.R.S. 18.9.106 states that

"
Not being a peace officer, displays a deadly weapon, displays any article used or fashioned in a manner to cause a person to reasonably believe that the article is a deadly weapon, or represents verbally or otherwise that he or she is armed with a deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm."

Obviously my mistake in that I think this is where I got the "in a manner calculated to alarm". Couldn't it easily be argue (even though I have no intention to alarm anyone) that strapping a gun to my hip is intended to alarm?

Again, I'm just wanting to make sure that I'm within the law OCing. I know it has been said time and time again, but I'm trying to think from the other side of things.
 

Gunslinger

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
3,853
Location
Free, Colorado, USA
imported post

SatoriAxiom wrote:
Thanks for the great reply.

What about "Disorderly conduct" then?

C.R.S. 18.9.106 states that

"
Not being a peace officer, displays a deadly weapon, displays any article used or fashioned in a manner to cause a person to reasonably believe that the article is a deadly weapon, or represents verbally or otherwise that he or she is armed with a deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm."

Obviously my mistake in that I think this is where I got the "in a manner calculated to alarm". Couldn't it easily be argue (even though I have no intention to alarm anyone) that strapping a gun to my hip is intended to alarm?

Again, I'm just wanting to make sure that I'm within the law OCing. I know it has been said time and time again, but I'm trying to think from the other side of things.
Just OCing is not disorderly conduct. The burden of proof is on the prosecution to set forth your 'calculated intent' to cause alarm. And, it has to be in a public place. Peacefully walking down a street would never hold. Even in a store, simply having a holstered handgun does not meet the standard of "calculated to alarm" in Colorado.
 

centsi

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Feb 11, 2008
Messages
392
Location
Castle Rock, Colorado, USA
imported post

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.


EDIT: formatting
 

SatoriAxiom

New member
Joined
Apr 9, 2009
Messages
7
Location
, ,
imported post

Rabbit, Gunslinger, & Centsi,

Thanks so much for bearing with me and responding to my specific questions. I guess I just got spooked a little by the class and what the instructor said.

So . . . any Fort Collins people want to grab an lunch or coffee some time?
 

hansolo

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2009
Messages
186
Location
Fort Collins, Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
imported post

Being as I am not yet 21, I will not carry on campus. I do plan to store it off campus and carry while off campus. The OC ban on Public Universities is unconstitutional.

Constitution of The State of Colorado – Article II Bill of Rights – Section 13. Right to Bear Arms
[align=justify]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.[/align][align=justify]
[/align]
 

doublewide

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2009
Messages
37
Location
Windsor, Colorado, USA
imported post

Seems pretty clear to me as well but nevertheless we have laws in place prohibitingOC and judges upholding the prohibitions. However, CCW is permitted so I suppose that is how the constitutionality is provided for those 21+. I'd argue that the laws are discriminatory against those under 21 and deny their consitutional right to bear arms at all since they cannot CCW and cannot OC in certain places where someone 21+ CAN at least CCW. In fact, at what age do our rights begin?!

But I'm no lawyer, just a layman with a simple view.
 

jbowers24

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2007
Messages
55
Location
Cheyenne, Wyoming, USA
imported post

As previous posters mentioned, I doubt those charges would stand up in court. Definitely your attitude will dictate how things unfold with the officer.

I recently moved from FTC but OC'ed there at least once a week for over a year and no problems. I had at least 3 officers see me and either wave or say/do nothing. In two years of living there I don't think I saw a single other OC'er so it would be nice for you guys to get together. It might inspire a few others.
 

RayeHawk

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
36
Location
Seattleish, Washington, USA
imported post

You all are invited to join me at Lake Loveland for sterile carry picnic . . .

Wednesday, August 26 5:30pm (or when you can get there) at the Statue of Liberty.

Potluck - bring food, plan to share. Video cameras encouraged, as are chairs, etc. There's not much there, from what I remember.

I'm sure that you all wouldn't even think of it, but just in case, soft drinks only, please.

I'll be wearing the Libertarian Party of Washington shirt and Taurus Titanium .38. (And probably blue jeans and shoes. ;o)

Rachel H.
Seattle area, but Colorado Front Range homegirl
 

lopoetve

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2008
Messages
65
Location
, ,
imported post

RayeHawk wrote:
You all are invited to join me at Lake Loveland for sterile carry picnic . . .

Wednesday, August 26 5:30pm (or when you can get there) at the Statue of Liberty.

Potluck - bring food, plan to share. Video cameras encouraged, as are chairs, etc. There's not much there, from what I remember.

I'm sure that you all wouldn't even think of it, but just in case, soft drinks only, please.

I'll be wearing the Libertarian Party of Washington shirt and Taurus Titanium .38. (And probably blue jeans and shoes. ;o)

Rachel H.
Seattle area, but Colorado Front Range homegirl
I could probably make it then.
 
Top