Complete Local OC ban list

imported post

I'm responding to the Telluride issue here as well as the original thread.

Any municipality with a population of 2,000 or more can get a state charter as a "Home Rule" municipality.

OC in Telluride, and any other municipality outside Denver, is legal IMHO, and here's why: The Meyers decision relied on Denver's special circumstance in deciding that OC was a matter of local concern, specifically Denver's population density:No other city can claim the same status. Had the decision read, " I agree with the City's argument that open carrying is a matter of purely local concern", without the caveat, "at least insofar as Denver is concerned." that might be a different story. Obviously most of us know that OC is legal throughout ALL of Colorado because 13A protects it, and that 13A is a "fundamental" right regardless of what the CO courts say. They might even recognize that now in light of Heller, or be forced to do so in the near future because of a related case.

In any case, other municipalities cannot use the Meyers decision to justify an OC ban.

imported post

cscitney87 wrote:

Yooper wrote:

Be careful with the Denver Mountain Parks as well.  They are Denver property.

http://www.denvergov.org/MountainParks/tabid/430342/Default.aspx

The above website has the list of parks.  Parts or all may be Denver property.
Bergen Peak for example, the park is part of JeffCO open space, Denver Mountain Parks, and U.S. Forest Service land, depending where you are.

Click to expand...

That definitely answered my question.  Red Rocks and Lookout Mountain are both part of the Denver Mountain Parks.  OC is banned in both places.   Looks like I will need to find a new place to hike in the Denver Metro.  There is that really neat aqua-duct trail in Golden along 6th Ave West.....

Thanks Yooper.  Ps. I used to live in Michigan (Detroit).  I moved to Colorado to get a job- so far so good  

Click to expand...

But City and County of Denver laws don't apply. It might be owned by Denver but it's still JeffCo. So unless there's signage stating "no OC" there is OC.

imported post

Unfortunately that's not true. OC is still statutorily prohibited in Denver's extraterritorial parks:

And from the '04 Meyers decision:

So no OC in Denver's mountain parks, even those in Jeffco.

imported post

I stand corrected. Seems like the counties with Denver owned land should take this to a higher court.

imported post

shmoab wrote:

I stand corrected. Seems like the counties with Denver owned land should take this to a higher court.

Click to expand...

They could, but between a snowball surviving in hell and Denver giving up any land, I'm betting on the snowball every time.

imported post

FogRider wrote:

shmoab wrote:

I stand corrected. Seems like the counties with Denver owned land should take this to a higher court.

Click to expand...

They could, but between a snowball surviving in hell and Denver giving up any land, I'm betting on the snowball every time.

Click to expand...

I just can't see how that can be right. Basically Denver annexes any land they buy. What about the rights of the other counties?

imported post

centsi wrote:

I'm responding to the Telluride issue here as well as the original thread.

Any municipality with a population of 2,000 or more can get a state charter as a "Home Rule" municipality.

OC in Telluride, and any other municipality outside Denver, is legal IMHO, and here's why:  The Meyers decision relied on Denver's special circumstance in deciding that OC was a matter of local concern, specifically Denver's population density:

However, I agree with the City's argument that open carrying is a matter of purely local concern, at least insofar as Denver is concerned. Denver is by far the most densely populated area of Colorado.
​

No other city can claim the same status.  Had the decision read, " I agree with the City's argument that open carrying is a matter of purely local concern", without the caveat, "at least insofar as Denver is concerned." that might be a different story. Obviously most of us know that OC is legal throughout ALL of Colorado because 13A protects it, and that 13A is a "fundamental" right regardless of what the CO courts say.  They might even recognize that now in light of Heller, or be forced to do so in the near future because of a related case.

In any case, other municipalities cannot use the Meyers decision to justify an OC ban.

Click to expand...

I meant to respond to this earlier, and never got around to it.

The City of Longmont has signs posted along the St. Vrain Greenway (along the St. Vrain River) prohibiting all carry of weapons (and there's also a City ordinance prohibiting weapons in City parks). I wrote to the City Attorney, and was surprised when he replied.

The bottom line is, they claim the right to prohibit open carry based on the Meyer decision. He ignored state preemption regarding concealed carry, and, of course, stated that the ordinance promotes public safety. I haven't had a chance to write back, but I'm certainly going to point out the fact that they can't regulate concealed carry, period.

Centsi, thanks for researching the Meyer decision. I'd bet you're correct, that it only applies to Denver. I'd love to know if there's any case law supporting that.

imported post

This issue just keeps popping up withthe same misunderstanding of the preemption law and the Meyer decision.

First off, preemption means that if the state of Colorado has a law regulating a given matter that law preempts any local government law. In other words, preemption prevents a local government frommaking a law that is more restrictive thanthe state law or that contradictsa state law. Preemption basically says that a state law takes priority over local law but there has to be an actual state lawregulatingthe matter for the preemption law to have an effect. For example, in the case of concealed carry, the state of Colorado hasa law regulating concealed carry, therefore, the preemption law prohibitslocal governments fromenacting lawsmore restrictive onconcealed carrythanthe state law.

In the case of open carry in Colorado, there is no actual state law that gives a person the right toopen carry, there is simply no law that prohibits open carry. Since there is no state law regulating open carry in Coloradothere is no state law to preempt any local government law. Remember, preemption requires the existence of a state law regulating the matter in the first place,hence the term "preempt". The mere absence of law does not in itself constitute a law or an intent.

As for the Meyer decision, the City of Denver tried to restrict concealed carry, open carry and vehicle carry. The court found thatstatelawspecifically allowed for concealed carry and vehicle carry, therefore, the states preemption law dictated that the state law had precedence over local law and the Denver law prohibiting these twoelements was struck down. As for open carry, the court found that since there was no state law regulating open carry there was no law to preempt the Denver law prohibiting open carry and therefore, the court upheld the City's ban on open carry.

Now, many think that the court only upheld the right of Denver to prohibit open carry and that all other cities are prohibited from doing the same under preemption, but this is not the case. While Denver is the only city that currently has a law prohibiting open carry, the fact remains that since there is no state law regulatingor allowing for open carry, any local government can enact a law banning open carry just like Denver did and it will be just as legal as the Denver statute.

In order for Colorado's preemption law to prevent local governments from banning open carry, the state will have to enact a state law regulating the matter. If the state were to pass a law allow for open carry it would would not only prevent other cities from following Denver's lead, under preemption it would nullify the Denver law as well.

Anyone interested in reading the actual Meyer ruling here isa link to it.

http://www.rmgo.org/alerts/2004-denverruling.htm#Vehicles

Doc

imported post

DocNTexas wrote:

This issue just keeps popping up withthe same misunderstanding of the preemption law and the Meyer decision.

First off, preemption means that if the state of Colorado has a law regulating a given matter that law preempts any local government law. In other words, preemption prevents a local government frommaking a law that is more restrictive thanthe state law or that contradictsa state law. Preemption basically says that a state law takes priority over local law but there has to be an actual state lawregulatingthe matter for the preemption law to have an effect. For example, in the case of concealed carry, the state of Colorado hasa law regulating concealed carry, therefore, the preemption law prohibitslocal governments fromenacting lawsmore restrictive onconcealed carrythanthe state law.

In the case of open carry in Colorado, there is no actual state law that gives a person the right toopen carry, there is simply no law that prohibits open carry. Since there is no state law regulating open carry in Coloradothere is no state law to preempt any local government law. Remember, preemption requires the existence of a state law regulating the matter in the first place,hence the term "preempt". The mere absence of law does not in itself constitute a law or an intent.

As for the Meyer decision, the City of Denver tried to restrict concealed carry, open carry and vehicle carry. The court found thatstatelawspecifically allowed for concealed carry and vehicle carry, therefore, the states preemption law dictated that the state law had precedence over local law and the Denver law prohibiting these twoelements was struck down. As for open carry, the court found that since there was no state law regulating open carry there was no law to preempt the Denver law prohibiting open carry and therefore, the court upheld the City's ban on open carry.

Now, many think that the court only upheld the right of Denver to prohibit open carry and that all other cities are prohibited from doing the same under preemption, but this is not the case. While Denver is the only city that currently has a law prohibiting open carry, the fact remains that since there is no state law regulatingor allowing for open carry, any local government can enact a law banning open carry just like Denver did and it will be just as legal as the Denver statute.

In order for Colorado's preemption law to prevent local governments from banning open carry, the state will have to enact a state law regulating the matter. If the state were to pass a law allow for open carry it would would not only prevent other cities from following Denver's lead, under preemption it would nullify the Denver law as well.

Anyone interested in reading the actual Meyer ruling here isa link to it.

http://www.rmgo.org/alerts/2004-denverruling.htm#Vehicles

Doc

Click to expand...

I appreciate your thoughts on the matter but you are mistaken: The State of Colorado DID pass a law with regard to the regulation of Open Carry: CRS 29-11.7-104 aka Senate Bill 25. The scope and reach of that law was the issue in Meyers. The Court only found that the law, as it applied to Denver, was not wholly enforceable. Any other municipality that wanted to pass an open carry ban would have to go through the courts on their own.

Lastly, laws cannot and do not make actions legal. They either makes actions illegal, or they impose restrictions on actions. Neither do Constitutions make actions legal. They provide protection for some actions and leave others up to the legislature to decide. In this case the State, recognizing the protection of OC through the state constitution, sought to restrict local governments' ability to regulate what was already legal and protected.

imported post

centsi wrote:

I'm responding to the Telluride issue here as well as the original thread.

Any municipality with a population of 2,000 or more can get a state charter as a "Home Rule" municipality.

OC in Telluride, and any other municipality outside Denver, is legal IMHO, and here's why: The Meyers decision relied on Denver's special circumstance in deciding that OC was a matter of local concern, specifically Denver's population density:

However, I agree with the City's argument that open carrying is a matter of purely local concern, at least insofar as Denver is concerned. Denver is by far the most densely populated area of Colorado.
​

No other city can claim the same status. Had the decision read, " I agree with the City's argument that open carrying is a matter of purely local concern", without the caveat, "at least insofar as Denver is concerned." that might be a different story. Obviously most of us know that OC is legal throughout ALL of Colorado because 13A protects it, and that 13A is a "fundamental" right regardless of what the CO courts say. They might even recognize that now in light of Heller, or be forced to do so in the near future because of a related case.

In any case, other municipalities cannot use the Meyers decision to justify an OC ban.

Click to expand...

Centsi,

With all respect, you misread the points Meyer made and misapplied them to reach your opinion. You have to read the section in total to understand the context of the statement.
[size=[color=darkred]
I reject the City's argument on statutory construction. Although the legislative history lends some support to the position, the plain language of C.R.S. §29-11.7-103 is clear and unambiguous. Under these circumstances, a court should not resort to legislative history. Town of Telluride, 3 P.3d at 37. To hold that the ordinance only regulates the open carrying of firearms when on its face, it prohibits such open carrying except in certain limited circumstances, would be an unnatural construction of both the statute and the ordinance.]

However, I agree with the City's argument that open carrying is a matter of purely local concern, at least insofar as Denver is concerned. Denver is by far the most densely populated area of Colorado. See Appendix B to Plaintiffs' Brief in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment Denver also suffers rates of violent crime far in excess of statewide averages. Id., Appendix C. These unique factors predominate over any need for statewide uniformity or any concern about extraterritorial impact. Uniformity in itself is no virtue, Denver v. State, at 769, and uniformity in this area seems to have diminished value due to the wide diversity of localities included in Colorado. As plaintiffs stated in their opening brief. "Simply put, a bullet fired in Denver--whether maliciously by a criminal or negligently by a law-abiding citizen is more likely to hit something or somebody than a bullet fired in rural Colorado." [/color]

In this paragraph Meyer was simply agreeing that there was no reason for statewide uniformity regarding open carry,that Denver did possess different risk factors that rural areas. It should be noted that he compared Denver to RURAL areas and not other densely populated cities. His point was that circumstances could dictate that one area have regulations that another does may not need. He did not say that anyrulingonly applied to Denver and the basis for his ruling on the matter of open carry is addressed in the following paragraphs:

Unlike the legislation for concealed carry, Senate Bill 25 fails to set forth a comprehensive regulatory scheme that serves as uniform authority for open carry of firearms. Also, unlike transportation of concealed weapons in automobiles, it should be relatively simple for a gun owner to recall that he or she may not carry a sidearm openly in downtown Denver as is possible in rural Colorado. History is also on the side of the local ordinance. Since 1973, Denver has regulated the open carrying of firearms in public. The State has been silent on the topic until Senate Bill 25. 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. Finally, there is no apparent need for governmental cooperation to facilitate laws in this area. City of Northglenn, 62 P.3d at 156. Based on the totality of the circumstances, I conclude that the State's interest in allowing the general open carry of firearms is insubstantial and is far outweighed by Denver's local interest in regulating firearms more strictly in an urbanized area. Where the State's interest is insubstantial, a matter may be deemed one of exclusively local concern for purposes of home rule analysis. City and County of Denver v. State, 788 P.2d at 771.

State law contains no restriction on the open carrying of firearms, nor does state law expressly permit the open carrying of firearms" in his ruling as the basis for allowing the Denver ban on open carry.

The bottom line is that the open carry challenge failed because there was no state law in place to preempt the Denver law. The state felt that the vague wording of the preemption law was sufficient to nullifyalllocal laws regarding firearms but the court applied the widely accepted understanding of preemption as requiringthe existence of a regulatingstate law in order to preempt a local law. This is the basis of the ruling in the Denver case and the same will hold true for any other city who enacts a similar law.

Doc

imported post

centsi wrote:

I appreciate your thoughts on the matter but you are mistaken: The State of Colorado DID pass a law with regard to the regulation of Open Carry: CRS 29-11.7-104 aka Senate Bill 25. The scope and reach of that law was the issue in Meyers. The Court only found that the law, as it applied to Denver, was not wholly enforceable. Any other municipality that wanted to pass an open carry ban would have to go through the courts on their own.

Lastly, laws cannot and do not make actions legal. They either makes actions illegal, or they impose restrictions on actions. Neither do Constitutions make actions legal. They provide protection for some actions and leave others up to the legislature to decide. In this case the State, recognizing the protection of OC through the state constitution, sought to restrict local governments' ability to regulate what was already legal and protected.

Click to expand...

I must disagree. You are correct that the application of SB 25 was the basis of the case and Meyer determined where it applied and where it did not. Meyer applied the commonly accepted definition of preemption as meaning that the state had to show intent to regulate the issue in law in order for the provisions of SB 25 to apply. Meyer ruled that the state did not show sufficient intent to regulate open carry as they did with concealed carry or vehicle carry and therefore found that there was no basis under SB 25 to preempt Denver'sopen carry law.

While the state may have intended SB 25 to be a blanker preemption of all gun laws, it did not go far enough in showing intent for open carry. Had the state addressed the concept of open carry directly then they could have shown intent to regulate open carry.

As for laws only being restrictive in nature, that is not correct. There are numerous laws that grant rights and privileges. For example, CRS 29-11.7-104 grants the right to local governments to enact laws regulating open carry in buildings and specific areas with in their jurisdiction. Many other laws grant privilege of act or action. In many states they simply state open carry as an exception to prosecution.

The bottom line is that in all legal venues the term preemption implies that there is an existing regulation that has precedence over other laws. The mere absence of a regulation does not constitute an intent to not regulate under preemption. This is the basis for Meyers ruling. Under home rule systems a local government can regulate any matter not preempted by state law thus the state has to clearly show intent to regulate the matter for local law to be preempted by state law.

I agree that the state intended for SB 25 to remove all rights of local government to regulate firearms and carry but the law as written could not stand up to scrutiny of law and legal history.

Since I spend so much time in Colorado, I too hope the state addresses the matter and make the necessary changes in the future but I suspect that will not occur until there are changes in the legislature role first.

Doc

imported post

Meyer didn't compare Denver with Rural areas; he contrasted Denver with them. Yes, he highlighted the differences between them as a basis for having different regulations. He did single out Denver for different treatment than other localities when he used the words "at least insofar as Denver is concerned". If this ruling was intended to up-end SB 25 across the board, why would he use such language? He also pointed to Denver's longstanding OC ban as another justification for this exception, oddly enough after dismissing the value of legislative history. Meyer did not say the ruling applied only to Denver but he did imply so and he did not say otherwise. Additionally a narrow ruling carved out for certain set of circumstances should not be applied to a different set of circumstances.

You know more than I about the legal definition of preemption. I do know that the entire idea of who get's to regulate/prohibit a Constitutional Right is invalid on it's face. The State brought up Art 2, Sec 13 but it was rejected by the court because the CO Supreme court has never held the RKBA as a fundamental right. Common sense tells us that they don't need to make that determination. I'm sure you would agree that the language is clear and unambiguous:

Stripping out the dependent clauses and the "keep", "home" & "property" designations makes it even clearer:
I certainly hope that a citizen will challenge both the City and the State on these grounds in the near future

imported post

centsi wrote:

Meyer didn't compare Denver with Rural areas; he contrasted Denver with them.

Click to expand...

While you are correct that the term "compare" can be used to show similarity, it can also be used to show an act of examining two items for differences or similarities.

Merriam-Webster

Compare 2a: To examine the character or qualities of, especially in order to discover resemblances or differences.

This is the manner in which I used the term. Meyer compared Denver to rural areas and found they contrasted with each other.

centsi wrote:

He did single out Denver for different treatment than other localities when he used the words "at least insofar as Denver is concerned". If this ruling was intended to up-end SB 25 across the board, why would he use such language?

Click to expand...

In his ruling Meyerpointed to the fact that:

"Unlike the legislation for concealed carry, Senate Bill 25 fails to set forth a comprehensive regulatory scheme that serves as uniform authority for open carry of firearms".

Despite any other statements or considerations, Meyer placed his decision on the fact that he felt SB25 did not affect laws concerningopen carry due to the fact that there are nostate laws that addressed open carry to use in preempting the Denver law. He basically states that throughthe absence ofregulatory law the state show no clear interest in regulating the matter, thereby leaving it open to local regulation.

As for up-ending SB25 across the board, as you mentioned, this was never the intent and not something he could do. SB25 was not on trial and, as such, the court couldrule not on itother than as to how it applied to the Denver law, which was the point of the trial.

Judge Meyer ruled on 5 disputed points in this case and in all five, he clearly pointed to whether SB25 applied to the point of law based on whether or not the state showed specific interest in regulating the given point of law by the presence or absence ofstate law.

In his ruling on Vehicle Carry: Given the State's detailed regulatory scheme for concealed carry of handguns, I find and conclude that the portion of DRMC 38-117(f)(2) which reads "while traveling into or through the city to or from another jurisdiction, regardless of the number of times the person stops in the city or the other jurisdiction" is in conflict with state law and is preempted by state law.

In his ruling on Open Carry: I find the State has failed to demonstrate a significant interest in requiring every city and town to allow open carry of firearms. Thus, I conclude that the City has proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that C.R.S. §29-11.7-103, insofar as the state relies on it to preempt the ordinances at issue here, is an unconstitutional infringement on the home rule powers of the City and County of Denver as guaranteed by Article XX, § 6 of the Colorado Constitution.

In his ruling on Assault Weapons: I find the State has failed to demonstrate a significant interest in requiring every city and town to allow assault weapons and Saturday night specials. Thus, I conclude that the City has proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that C.R.S. §29-11.7-103, insofar as the state relies on it to preempt the ordinances at issue here, is an unconstitutional infringement on the home rule powers of the City and County of Denver as guaranteed by Article XX, § 6 of the Colorado Constitution.

In his ruling on Safe Storage: State law is silent on the question of safe storage, and this ordinance does not prohibit the sale, purchase or possession of any firearm as described in C.R.S. §29-11.7-103. Therefore, the safe storage ordinance is not preempted.

In his ruling on Firearms in City Parks: The State has not shown any substantial interest in requiring a municipality to open its parks to all guns... ...the City's local concern for policing its own parks collides with the statewide statutory scheme governing carrying concealed handguns with a permit. Since the ordinance prohibiting all firearms in parks conflicts with the state statutes on concealed carry, the ordinance is preempted by state law only as to concealed handguns carried with a permit.

As you can see, in each part of this case, Meyer made his final ruling based solely on the of whether or not there was state law in place to use in preempting local law.

His reference to local specific circumstances is a secondary issue to the application of SB25. Under home rule authority, if a local jurisdiction can show that they have a significantly different circumstance thatwas not considered by state law makers when drafting the regulating state law, then they can win exemption from preempting state law at least until state law can be clarified to include the circumstance in question.

The city of Denver used this argument in addition to the their primary argument of no preemption status for open carry in the hope that if the judge ruled that SB25 did preempt local law on open carry it would then find special circumstance. You are correct that Meyer DID agree that special circumstance did exist in Denver, however he did not base his final decision on that fact, rather, he ruled that it was a mute point because there was no state law on the matter to preempt the Denver law in the first place. Although present, Denver's special circumstance did not come into play in his final ruling on their open carry law.

centsi wrote:

You know more than I about the legal definition of preemption.

Click to expand...

Meyer defined preemption in his ruling:

Express conflicts exist when an ordinance or local regulation authorizes what state legislation forbids or forbids what state legislation authorizes. City of Commerce City, 40 P.3d at 1284. An implied conflict arises when a local ordinance and a state law prevent each other from effectuating their purposes without necessarily legislating on the sane subject matter. See e.g., City of Northglenn, 62 P.3d at 156; Town of Telluride, 3 P.3d at 37. Should a home rule ordinance or regulation conflict with state law in an area of mixed concern, the local law will be preempted.

Preemption requires the existence of a higher regulating law. In the case of open carry, there is no specific regulating area of state law to use in preempting local law. If the state had clearly mentioned open carry in its other regulatory statutes on firearms then the state could establish its intent to regulate open carry and the lack of a law prohibiting open carry would then show the states intent that it be legal, but as it stands, this intent cannot clearly be established, therefore, local jurisdictions can freely regulate the matter.

As a side note, in light of the fact that Meyer recognized the presence of special circumstance in Denver, based on their dense population, any future state law directed at open carry must clearly include densely populated areas or it will leave an open door for local challenge.

centsi wrote:

I'm sure you would agree that the language is clear and unambiguous:

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.
​

Stripping out the dependent clauses and the "keep", "home" & "property" designations makes it even clearer:

The right of no person to bear arms in defense of his person shall be called in question.​

Click to expand...

I totally agree with you here, however, this is an issue to be challenged in a higher court. As long as the federal courts continue to allow for regulation the state and local levels will also.

centsi wrote:

​

I certainly hope that a citizen will challenge both the City and the State on these grounds in the near future
​

Click to expand...

I agree, but let's start with the feds. Fighting this point on the state level is like pushing a chain....the links (the states) go in every direction....but if you pull it by the first link (the feds) the rest eventually fall in line.

Doc

imported post

In addition to Denver, Boulder has a municipal codethat could be used toprohibit open carry as well.

5-8-21 Open Carriage of Firearms in Carrying Cases Required.

Any person carrying a firearm off of the person's property or outside of the person's business or vehicle shall carry the firearm in a carrying case. The carrying case must be recognizable as a gun carrying case by a reasonable person. A plain-shaped case must be clearly marked to be deemed recognizable under this standard. The carrying case must be openly carried and must not be concealed on or about the person. This section shall not apply to individuals who have a permit to carry a concealed weapon issued pursuant to state law.

Now, one must ask what they consider a "Carrying Case".

I would offer that a holster is "a gun carrying case and recognizable as such". Thecode does not clearly stipulate that it not be a holster or that the case completely enclose the firearm, but I am fairly sure this was their intent and the way they would apply it.

Prior to finding this code IOCed in Boulder on several occasions, usually only in specific places and for short durationsbut Ihave never had a problem, nor did I encounter any LEOs.

Does anyone have experience open carrying in Boulder?

Doc

imported post

I traveled to Broomfield, from Lakewood, for the first time today. I called ahead to the Broomfield non-emergency police department number, to gain a better understanding of their ordinances. Pertaining to Broomfield, I requested information regarding any ordinance, including disorderly conduct, that may prohibit the open carry of fire arms. I was told that an officer of the law would contact me shortly with an answer.

I got a callback on 303 4386400 from an officer (can't recall the name) and I was asked about my inquiry. I told the officer that I was made aware, by my lawyer, that the state of Colorado allows the open carry of fire arms anywhere except where posted by signage, except in Denver county where it's banned all together (paraphrasing my response). I asked him if there were currently any local bans on the open carry of fire arms and how a disorderly conduct charge could be used to restrict open carry. He said he would look into it and call me back.

Ten minutes later
303 4645858, sounded like the same officer, no introduction. I was told that currently, applying to public land (not private), Broomfield has an ordinance that says that anyone having a fire arm on their person is considered to be concealing the fire arm, therefor is required to have a permit to open carry Or conceal carry any fire arm in Broomfield. I was told that the only exceptions to this were in direct transport to and from a gun smith or shooting range.

I asked if Colorado State laws preempts this local ordinance and he reiterated his first response by telling me that I cannot just carry my fire arm around in public.

I thanked the officer, hung up, and proceeded to leave my pistol in my car.

Any ideas? My first thought is- "Sure, they have a local ordinance, but in the event of legal action, I could appeal my case to the state and win, avoiding any punishment."

Thanks guys.

imported post

never, NEVER, NEVER depend on a cop for a valid legal opinion or interpretation of the law

"officer broomfield" is wrong plain, simple and done

imported post

From the Broomfield Municipal Code:

9-72-140 Prohibiting the open carrying of firearms.

The open carrying of firearms, as firearm is defined in subsection 9-72-010(B), B.M.C., is hereby prohibited in any city-owned building, facility, park, open land, or open space where signs are placed at the public entrances to any city-owned building, facility, park, open land, or open space informing persons that the open carrying of firearms is prohibited. (Ord. 1736 §1, 2003)

9-72-020 Possession and use of weapons.
seems to make open carry illegal.

It's all at http://www.colocode.com/broomfield/title9.htm#chapter9_72

You decide how to interpret it!

imported post

Dynamite Rabbit wrote:

From the Broomfield Municipal Code:

9-72-140 Prohibiting the open carrying of firearms.

The open carrying of firearms, as firearm is defined in subsection 9-72-010(B), B.M.C., is hereby prohibited in any city-owned building, facility, park, open land, or open space where signs are placed at the public entrances to any city-owned building, facility, park, open land, or open space informing persons that the open carrying of firearms is prohibited. (Ord. 1736 §1, 2003)

9-72-020 Possession and use of weapons.
seems to make open carry illegal.

It's all at http://www.colocode.com/broomfield/title9.htm#chapter9_72

You decide how to interpret it!

Click to expand...

I agree. In it's face 9-72-020 does seem to prohibit that:

B) (1) No (loaded) firearms outside your property or property under your control or business except during actual defence with force.

Although, it appears that all of these prohibitions were enacted prior to 2003 because the last one (9-72-140) deals directly with OC in langauge almost identical to CRS29-11.7-104, and it was enacted in 2003. State law says those statues are null and void. I also think you'd have a pretty good argument in court about the harmony of the statues given that one statue generally prohibits all unloaded open carry while the other only prohibits open carry subsequent to29-11.7-104. But of course someone has to challenge them in court and that's no fun!

imported post

Dynamite Rabbit wrote:

From the Broomfield Municipal Code:

9-72-140 Prohibiting the open carrying of firearms.

The open carrying of firearms, as firearm is defined in subsection 9-72-010(B), B.M.C., is hereby prohibited in any city-owned building, facility, park, open land, or open space where signs are placed at the public entrances to any city-owned building, facility, park, open land, or open space informing persons that the open carrying of firearms is prohibited. (Ord. 1736 §1, 2003)

9-72-020 Possession and use of weapons.
seems to make open carry illegal.

It's all at http://www.colocode.com/broomfield/title9.htm#chapter9_72

You decide how to interpret it!

Click to expand...

I agree with Centsi, it would appear that 9-72-140, enacted in 2003, was intended to supersede 9-72-020, which was last modified in 1993, since 9-72-140 directly addresses Open Carry. In doing so, open carry in Broomfield is restricted in line with the provisions ofcurrent state law, 29-11.7-104 Regulation-Carrying-Posting, enacted in 2003 by SB25, which allows local governments toregulate (even prohibit)open carry within their jurisdiction as long as specific requirements of notification are met. If all entrances to a specified areas are signed, then itwould be illegal to carry in that area in Broomfield.

Doc

imported post

DocNTexas wrote:

Dynamite Rabbit wrote:

From the Broomfield Municipal Code:

9-72-140 Prohibiting the open carrying of firearms.

The open carrying of firearms, as firearm is defined in subsection 9-72-010(B), B.M.C., is hereby prohibited in any city-owned building, facility, park, open land, or open space where signs are placed at the public entrances to any city-owned building, facility, park, open land, or open space informing persons that the open carrying of firearms is prohibited. (Ord. 1736 §1, 2003)

9-72-020 Possession and use of weapons.
seems to make open carry illegal.

It's all at http://www.colocode.com/broomfield/title9.htm#chapter9_72

You decide how to interpret it!

Click to expand...

I agree with Centsi, it would appear that 9-72-140, enacted in 2003, was intended to supersede 9-72-020, which was last modified in 1993, since 9-72-140 directly addresses Open Carry. In doing so, open carry in Broomfield is restricted in line with the provisions ofcurrent state law, 29-11.7-104 Regulation-Carrying-Posting, enacted in 2003 by SB25, which allows local governments toregulate (even prohibit)open carry within their jurisdiction as long as specific requirements of notification are met. If all entrances to a specified areas are signed, then itwould be illegal to carry in that area in Broomfield.

Doc

Click to expand...

If Doc agrees it must be true! Thanks Doc!