Your aggressive, self-righteous tone adds little to the debate. I'm sure we're all impressed by your 'I'll do as I please and face the consequences like a free man' attitude, but it doesn't answer the question.
The *practical* question is: what consequences can one expect to face should one choose to OC in various cities and towns around Colorado?
For my part, I OC just about everywhere - including Arvada yesterday, so please, csctiney, do not think to lecture me from some presumed moral high ground. I don't respond well to sanctimony and moral judgmentalism and neither do most of the people I know, especially fans of gun rights.
I would also add I consider it foolish to alienate your fellow OCers thusly. There are not that many of us around, and encouragement rather than divisiveness would seem to be called for. Just one man's opinion.
Your assertion that city codes against OC (not statutes - that's state law) being "unenforceable" is ambiguous, as you must know.
In Boulder, one can expect to be accosted by the police and threatened with arrest. We know this. We have one data point that this was a bluff. My read of the Boulder code supports OC there. Consider, we have:
5-8-8 Possession of Loaded Firearms.
(a) Except as set forth in this chapter, no person shall possess a loaded firearm or a loaded gas or mechanically operated gun.
But then we have:
5-8-22 Defenses.
(a) It is an affirmative defense to a charge of violating sections ... 5-8-8, "Possession of Loaded Firearms," B.R.C. 1981, that the defendant was:
(1) Reasonably engaged in lawful self-defense under the statutes of the State of Colorado; or
(2) Reasonably exercising the right to keep and bear arms in defense of the defendant's or another's home, person, and property, or in aid of the civil power when legally thereto summoned.
So 5-8-22.a.2 would SEEM to negate 5-8-8. BUT that depends - we have the weasel word 'reasonably' to worry about, at the very least. Could a cop arrest you without concern for a civil suit? May depend on case law, which I don't know, not being a lawyer. At least, you could probably be arrested, and then the upper management types - perhaps upon advice from the district attorney's office - may choose not to charge. Unless they are looking to establish another 2nd amendment-free zone in Boulder, which, because such an attempt would play well politically there, might well be the case. Thus, someone who chooses to OC in Boulder may well have RIGHTS on their side, they may even have STATE law on their side, but nevertheless be arrested, charged, and cast in the starring role in a political case - which could go nowhere or all the way up. Who knows. They say a patent it not a patent until it's been litigated - same thing goes for obscure city ordinances.
Bottom line: there are possibly significant consequences to OC in Boulder - flat out.
As to Arvada, I have no idea. Maybe the same argument applies? The case is less clear since I can't find affirmative defenses like the one on the Boulder code. That means to me that there is a higher likelihood that an Arvada LEO could arrest you at his discretion without fear of a civil suit: he was just enforcing the law, and courts grant wide latitude to a cop's discretion. Again, they may choose not to charge you, but then again, they may - and the consequences of arrest itself let alone being charged should be considered.
For example, there may be folks visiting this board who at some point may need to get a security clearance for a job, and an arrest - however frivolous, however "unenforceable" the charge - could mean they don't get it. So as someone said earlier, asserting legal advice based solely upon one's preferences in a post here is inexcusably reckless, and anyone reading these threads should consult a lawyer so they know just where they stand.
Everybody has the right, and SHOULD have the freedom, to make their own choices in this regard, free from sanctimonious moral judgements.