Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: Daily Camera (CO) - Boulder area cities' illegal gun bans exposed

  1. #1
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Daily Camera (CO) - Boulder area cities' illegal gun bans exposed

    Coloradoans need to be showing up tio these city council meetings and challenging these illegal gun bans - let's roll folks!
    --
    http://www.dailycamera.com/longmont-news/ci_15415486

    SNIP

    Most cities in Boulder County have enacted some form of gun-control laws.

    In Boulder, a city code makes it a crime to openly bring a gun into any city-owned or city-operated property -- such as open space, libraries and city buildings -- where posted signs state that firearms aren't allowed. Another code specifically makes it illegal to bring a gun into the City Council meeting room when the council is in session.

    But despite the signs, a concealed-carry permit can trump the city's rules, said Kathy Haddock, Boulder's senior assistant city attorney.

    Boulder Mayor Susan Osborne said Wednesday that she didn't know guns could be allowed inside a council meeting. She said she's concerned about that and the court's decision, saying the city should have the right to expand its gun restrictions.

    "It feels as though, at a local level, we should have the right to protect elected officials from harm," she said. "It's really an unpleasant thought to me that anybody would want to bring guns to a council meeting."

    Haddock, who has worked on several municipal gun laws, said the city has taken handgun restrictions as far as it could without challenging the state's laws.

    The city and county of Broomfield has done the same, banning the open carry of handguns on city property. Permit holders can still carry concealed.

    "A lot of stuff changed here after 9/11," said Rosann Doran, a spokeswoman for Broomfield. "The idea of people walking in and spraying bullets around kind of got people's attention."

    Broomfield Police Chief Tom Delend said allowing concealed handguns inside city buildings, including the police department, has never caused him concern.

    "At this point, it has never been an issue," he said.

    Unincorporated Boulder County has even less ability to set restrictions on handguns because it's a statutory county that's mostly governed by state law.

    Still, the Boulder County commissioners earlier this year updated a resolution that bans the discharge or open carry of firearms on county-owned open space.

    County spokeswoman Carrie Haverfield said there are also signs asking residents not to bring guns into county-owned buildings, but there is no official ordinance making the act illegal.

    "We don't have any enforcement mechanism in place," she said.

    Other Boulder County cities with restrictions on the open carry of firearms on city property include Lafayette and Superior.

    The mountain town of Nederland has an informal policy prohibiting the open carry of handguns inside its town hall, but it is not illegal.

    In Erie, there is no town ordinance specifically prohibiting open carry of guns inside town facilities, although some buildings, including the Erie Recreation Center, have policies against firearms that police can enforce.

    Openly carried or concealed firearms are prohibited at the Boulder County Justice Center, and most other courthouses, because they have permanent security screening in place. State law also prevents guns -- concealed or otherwise -- from being carried at public schools, or where prohibited by federal law.

    Not a big problem

    Dudley Brown, executive director of Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, a Denver-based Second Amendment lobbying group, said Wednesday that most people who carry guns openly or concealed don't make trouble.

    "In general, we don't find that people who open carry or conceal carry are a big problem with law enforcement," he said.

    He said that restricting the open carry of handguns doesn't make much sense because police have the ability to contact, question and disarm anyone acting inappropriately with a gun.

    He also said that some cities with policies against carrying guns give residents the false impression that it's illegal to do so.

    "That's the kind of thing that happens all over the place," he said.

    People with permits, he added, have more rights than they might be aware of.



    Read more: Longmont moves on handgun ban amid pro-gun victory at Supreme Court - Boulder Daily Camera http://www.dailycamera.com/longmont-...#ixzz0vGoaL4k7
    DailyCamera.com

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Lakewood, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    1,250

    Wink

    "In Boulder, a city code makes it a crime to openly bring a gun into any city-owned or city-operated property -- such as open space, libraries and city buildings -- where posted signs state that firearms aren't allowed."

    where posted signs state that firearms aren't allowed

    Another Win for State Preemption! Have to post a sign at every public entrance or the open carry ban is unenforceable by law.

    Everywhere but Denver! Open Carry on everybody!

    By the way, I completely understand the need for local governance, but disagree with Boulder's reasoning. They are allowed, by State law, and should be allowed to ban open carry in their city buildings if the residents of Boulder believe that's what is best for them. Remember, representative governance- Boulder residents voted for these officials and now they are legislating. If you don't like what's happening in Boulder then change your vote! If you don't vote- you have almost no room to complain.

    As a frequent traveler to Boulder, for hiking, I can say that I am glad to see the rights of permit holders recognized in this article. I wish the permit was free to everyone.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855
    [QUOTE=cscitney87;1298053

    As a frequent traveler to Boulder, for hiking, I can say that I am glad to see the rights of permit holders recognized in this article. I wish the permit was free to everyone.[/QUOTE]
    The only reason the CCW holders' rights are recognized in the PDR of Boulder is because of full state preemption. If they could, they'd ban CC as well. When the giant sinkhole swallows Denver, I hope it spreads out and takes Boulder too.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Kingfish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Atlanta, Georgia, USA
    Posts
    1,276
    Quote Originally Posted by cscitney87 View Post
    By the way, I completely understand the need for local governance, but disagree with Boulder's reasoning. They are allowed, by State law, and should be allowed to ban open carry in their city buildings if the residents of Boulder believe that's what is best for them. Remember, representative governance- Boulder residents voted for these officials and now they are legislating. If you don't like what's happening in Boulder then change your vote! If you don't vote- you have almost no room to complain.
    I respectfully disagree. If OC is a right in CO then why should local governments be allowed to place ANY restrictions on that RIGHT?

    This same logic can be used for Denver's total OC ban.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Kingfish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Atlanta, Georgia, USA
    Posts
    1,276
    Quote Originally Posted by cscitney87 View Post
    As a frequent traveler to Boulder, for hiking, I can say that I am glad to see the rights of permit holders recognized in this article. I wish the permit was free to everyone.
    A permit is not a right, it is a state granted and easily revoked privilege. A right cannot be taxed or licensed.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Lakewood, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    1,250
    Mmmhmm.... Well our Colorado State Constitution declares your ability to carry, openly, an unalienable right that may not be infringed upon. Your concealed handgun is specifically unprotected Constitutionally and is a privilege. Now lets start from the bottom up... We believe in representative governance, right? We believe we operate in a society of government for the people, by the people, and of the people.. We decide that we are going to hold elections to lawfully appoint citizens to legislate from the local level on up. I believe Boulder, as a local jurisdiction, has the right to govern itself how it please- Our State Laws allow Boulder to legislate an open carry ban when Signs are posted. This is a Constitutional law and has been upheld as such. There is nothing unlawful or Unconstitutional about Boulder banning OC in it's city buildings.

    Those legislatures are duly elected- you can't stop them from passing laws that are clearly constitutional.

    Remember- our Colorado Constitution Allows for Open Carry and also Allows for the State Law that regulates Open Carry; being that a local jurisdiction may ban with signs.

    I understand it's not going to sit well with most Open Carriers. I understand that it is an inconvenience- but unlawful it is not. Unconstitutional it is not. Until the Colorado Supreme Court rules that nobody can ban OC even with a sign- there's nothing to suit for here. Nothing unlawful at all... Don't like Boulder's laws? Get out. Vote them out.. Buck the system.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Kingfish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Atlanta, Georgia, USA
    Posts
    1,276
    Ok, so let me get this right.

    If every city and county banned OC(as Denver has done) and that ban was upheld(as Denver's was) you would have no problem with that?

    How about the same for AWBs? How about handgun bans? Registration, Insurance, License to purchase?

    Where does it end? What then? Move to Utah?

    I don't see ANY exceptions on OC in here...

    "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."

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Lakewood, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    1,250
    "If every city and county banned OC(as Denver has done) and that ban was upheld(as Denver's was) you would have no problem with that?"

    That would be unconstitutional.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Kingfish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Atlanta, Georgia, USA
    Posts
    1,276
    Quote Originally Posted by cscitney87 View Post
    "If every city and county banned OC(as Denver has done) and that ban was upheld(as Denver's was) you would have no problem with that?"

    That would be unconstitutional.
    If a citywide OC ban is unconstitutional then how is a ban on OC in the local city codes office constitutional? Where in the constitution does it say OC is cool everywhere EXCEPT on property owned by the PEOPLE?

    CS, you are a smart guy and I have the utmost respect for you. I hope I am just misunderstanding what you are saying.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    62
    Quote Originally Posted by Kingfish View Post
    A right cannot be taxed or licensed.
    Tell that to those idiots we have in both Congress and the White House. Since they just put a tax on being a citizen.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Lakewood, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    1,250

    Thumbs up

    I haven't posted because I changed my mind. Originally I respected Boulders decision to post OC ban signs at their entrances to select buildings. I've slept on it and now have decided the rights of every individual must be respected equally. As in the First Amendment's protection of unpopular speech- the Second is protecting a somewhat unpopular method of self defense. Why is it so easy for me to see the way, Freedom, and not for others?

  12. #12
    Regular Member Kingfish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Atlanta, Georgia, USA
    Posts
    1,276
    Quote Originally Posted by cscitney87 View Post
    I haven't posted because I changed my mind.
    Good for you for keeping an open mind.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,187
    Quote Originally Posted by cscitney87 View Post
    IWhy is it so easy for me to see the way, Freedom, and not for others?
    You are the chosen one. Don't worry. Other prophets were denounced as trolls as well.

    I do agree with you from a slightly different perspective. Since this doesn't do anything to actually protect anyone, it's an asinine law just to make people "feel" safer. Ya know, there's a lot of other unsavory characters that people prefer not to have to deal with while visiting a city owned building. Grizzled and scruffy sun-beaten middle aged guys who people pull their children away from. And gangly guys in polo shirts. Can we ban beards and ball caps and sunglasses? Those really don't make people "feel" safe.

    I'm not going to cry discrimination or 2A and make a federal case out of it. I'm just going to point to the idiocy of hoplophobia and prejudice about the most superficial issues.

  14. #14
    Regular Member Kingfish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Atlanta, Georgia, USA
    Posts
    1,276
    Quote Originally Posted by av8tr1 View Post
    Tell that to those idiots we have in both Congress and the White House. Since they just put a tax on being a citizen.
    Welcome to the forum pilot.

    Maybe one day "WE" will wake up and see how far the country has strayed from the path. We are making progress.

  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Kingfish View Post
    I respectfully disagree. If OC is a right in CO then why should local governments be allowed to place ANY restrictions on that RIGHT?

    This same logic can be used for Denver's total OC ban.
    Agreed, and would remind people that it's a hung (50-50) issue, which could soon be overturned.

    I also agree with your subsequent comment about a permit being a right, not a privelage. Ours is a "shall-issue" state, not a "may issue" state.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  16. #16
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    Agreed, and would remind people that it's a hung (50-50) issue, which could soon be overturned.

    I also agree with your subsequent comment about a permit being a right, not a privelage. Ours is a "shall-issue" state, not a "may issue" state.
    That is a key point. New SC Justices can force Denver County to follow completely the preemption laws. Also, keep in mind that other cities are not included in that decision and may only ban OC in a very limited manner in buildings. We need to kick out the leftwing Justices this November along with the other democrap pos.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    215
    To stop those gun bans look at your city charter.
    The people working in city government take an oath to uphold the Constitutions.
    It is up to the people to make them honor their oath. Perjury of oath is a crime.
    Also city property belongs to the people, not the government.
    Life is tough, its tougher when your stupid.

    http://www.itsnotthelaw.com

    Feds: U.C.C. 1-308, State: U.C.C. 1-207, Both: U.C.C. 1-103.6

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Boulder
    Posts
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by mahkagari View Post
    ...
    Since this doesn't do anything to actually protect anyone, it's an asinine law just to make people "feel" safer.
    AFAIC, this is all that needs to be said about it. This is what needs to be brought up any time the topic comes up.

    All the nonsense "feel-good" and "reasonable restrictions for safety" are just this.
    Never let an opportunity pass by to hammer this point home, to respond to the local papers' articles which have an anti-gun-rights slant.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •