imported post
cs,
I am well aware of the wording of 29-11.7-104, but more importantly, I am aware of the application of the statute in light of the the Meyer decision, whicheffectively nullified both 29-11.7-103 and 29-11.7-104 for use as preempting statutes. While I agree that29-11.7-104 SHOULD[/b] have been sufficientfor showing the states intent to regulate the open carry of firearms, the Colorado Supreme Court did not and indicated such in their decision. In regard to open carry, Justice Meyer wrote:
“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”.[/i]
This finding means that the court does not consider 29-11.7-103 and 29-11.7-104 substantially significant in context to be used as a preempting state law over local ordinances. This means that it applies to ALL local municipalities equally, not just Denver.
Now, you may choose to believe that all the current local bans on OC are invalid, but I assure you, if you are caught open carrying in Golden, Telluride or Arvada (I just received the info from Arvada this morning, thereby adding it to the list of cities with a validOC ban), you WILL[/b] get the chance to discuss it before the local judge (and then we will have our basis for a second city test case). I have spent literally hundreds of hours researching and compiling local firearm ordinances across Colorado and visiting with the local authorities regarding their interpretation of their ordinances and I assure you, this is how these towns plan to enforce them. Likewise, I have discussed the issue of the Meyer decision with several attorneys and all have rendered the same opinion.
As for your argument about comparing the number of members arrested for OCing to the number that OC across the state, well, that really has little, if anything, to do with the point of this discussion. The point of this discussion is that IF[/b] a city has a statute against OC, then it is enforceable. The fact also exists that ONLY 5[/b] Colorado cities currently known to have and enforce laws against open carry (with three of the five being in the same basic geographical area...i.e. the Denver metro area), therefore most of the state is legal for OC, and as such, it stands to reason that few people will get arrested for violating such an ordinance when considering the wide practice of open carry elsewhere. The only places you will get into trouble is in one of these five areas, and only then if you are caught by a police officer. I might also point out that people tend not to OC in the cities surrounding Denver either, presumably due to uncertainty of the close proximity to Denver. So, that is a pointless argument. I too have carried openly all over Colorado without incident, but I also know not to do so in these 5 banned areas. I also make it a point to only OC in areas that I have confirmed to be legal.
Moving down to yourfollowing post, I am well aware of the joint city/county status of Denver and how it works and I assure you, there is no special authority afford Denverthat is not afforded any other city or county in Colorado. The City of Denver and Denver County are merely a joint managing government by mutual agreement and incorporation and do not gain any sort of special consideration, higher status or state equality of their ordinances as a result. Furthermore, Meyer did not make any such inferences in his decision. Meyers based ALL of his decisions on the simple fact that 29-11.7-103 and 29-11.7-104 were not sufficiently encompassing to show the states intent to regulate open carry, assault weapons and so forth and therefore could not be used to preempt local law.In short, the statemust have a statute expressly regulatingthese issues (as it does with CCW) in order to preemptANY local statute.
As for your claim that the state’s preemption law has prevailed time and time again, I can assure you, it has NOT prevailed a single time over a local OC law and if you think it has, I would challenge you to produce the facts of where and when, because to my knowledge, and theattorneys I have consulted, it simply does not exist. The fact is, the state preemption law merely provides that if a state law exists that regulates an issue, then it prevails over lower jurisdictions, and in the case of open carry, no such state law exist, except for 29-11.7-103 and 29-11.7-104, which the Colorado Supreme Courtruled was insufficient to usein preemptinglocal law. Therefore, local jurisdictions can enforce local OC bans and the five listed cities currently do so.
As for Boulder, I and many others have said time over that the referencedordinance is too vague to apply to OC and it was nice to hear that another local authority agrees. But the absence of a local ordinance in Boulder in no way “PROVES” that such a law is not enforceablein Boulderor anywhere else in the state. It simply means the City of Boulder has chosen not to do so.
Oh yes, as for thelinks you provided, well, none of them work…they come up “The webpage cannot be found”. But as for your challenge regarding Longmont and Breckenridge, well, Longmont does not have an OC statute and the Breckenridge statute states “OC prohibited where posted”. So again, not really germane to the discussion here, other than to show thatBreckenridge also hasan ordinance against OC, but chooses to require posting of banned areas similar 29-11.7-104.
And last of all, as for my relying on maybe’s, hear-say, could happens and so forth, I assure you, I do no such thing. I have spent hundreds of hourssearching and verifying my information, and where need be, I have confirmed it through legal counsel as well. So, before you take it upon yourself to berate my post and the information I have included, I suggest YOU find some legal counsel and check your facts. In the meantime, let me know when you want to walk around one of the 5 cities that currently have OC bans and I will gladly accompany you to video your encounter with the local authorities.
While I appreciate your desire to improve the carry laws and participate in these forums, I have to question your urging of others to carry in direct violation of standing laws. You may truly believe all the claims that you post, but rather than urging others to be the test case, I would suggest that you take the risk yourself.As with the Boulder statute, all my information said it was not valid for the purpose of banning OC, and I have chosen to OC there on several occasions, but I still offered the information received to the contrary for others to use in making their own decisions. In the case of Arvada, Golden and the others with clearly defined ordinances against OC, in light of the Meyer decision I will not challenge themuntil the State passes a clear preempting statute for OC, nor do I suggest you do. But if you just want to test your theory, as I said before, I will gladly carry the camera and document the encounter for you.
Doc
