M-Taliesin
Regular Member
Howdy Folks!
I have spent quite a bit of time reading the Meyers Decision, in which the City of Denver got judicial support for their contention that they were not subject to the State of Colorado premption language.
My curiosity peaked, because I do not see how that decision would exempt the city/county of Denver from adherence to the language of the Constitution: Article 2, Sections 3 and 13.
Yes, Denver made a case that their exemption based on Article XX had validity, but I still don't get how it can exist contrary to Article 2. Aside from that, the decision runs contrary to the U.S. Constitution 2nd Amendment.
While the state made their own argument regarding state's interest, and Denver prevailed making their case based on City interest, there appears to be obvious and compelling argument that any city must have laws consistent with both the State and Federal Constitutions. While the State of Colorado may have failed to demonstrate superior state interest, there still remains the whole Constitutional issue of the 2nd Amendment.
Much of the City of Denver's contention that it should be expempt from preemption was based on the urban nature of Denver itself, and that Denver had a compelling interest in maintaining their expemption. The judge in the Meyers case agreed. It appears that the state relented.
Living proximal to Denver, as I do; and considering that tendrils of Denver run hither and yon in an almost incoherent manner, the otherwise law abiding citizen could easily cross into Denver territory (and into areas that could not possibly be construed as 'urban') without knowledge of having done so. That individual could be subject to infringement into Denver's territory and subjected to prosecution for what otherwise would be lawful carrying of a firearm. (assuming no permit/open carry)
I'd like to note here that Montbello, Green Valley Ranch, and similar areas are not what one would consider "urban"; at least in the sense of the downtown area or neighborhoods proximal to the city center.
While I intend to start immediately into classes with my wife so we can secure our permits, I am just puzzled at how Denver can assert itself as immune to Constitutional provisions of both the State and Federal governments.
Anybody got any illumination on this topic?
Blessings,
M-Taliesin
I have spent quite a bit of time reading the Meyers Decision, in which the City of Denver got judicial support for their contention that they were not subject to the State of Colorado premption language.
My curiosity peaked, because I do not see how that decision would exempt the city/county of Denver from adherence to the language of the Constitution: Article 2, Sections 3 and 13.
Yes, Denver made a case that their exemption based on Article XX had validity, but I still don't get how it can exist contrary to Article 2. Aside from that, the decision runs contrary to the U.S. Constitution 2nd Amendment.
While the state made their own argument regarding state's interest, and Denver prevailed making their case based on City interest, there appears to be obvious and compelling argument that any city must have laws consistent with both the State and Federal Constitutions. While the State of Colorado may have failed to demonstrate superior state interest, there still remains the whole Constitutional issue of the 2nd Amendment.
Much of the City of Denver's contention that it should be expempt from preemption was based on the urban nature of Denver itself, and that Denver had a compelling interest in maintaining their expemption. The judge in the Meyers case agreed. It appears that the state relented.
Living proximal to Denver, as I do; and considering that tendrils of Denver run hither and yon in an almost incoherent manner, the otherwise law abiding citizen could easily cross into Denver territory (and into areas that could not possibly be construed as 'urban') without knowledge of having done so. That individual could be subject to infringement into Denver's territory and subjected to prosecution for what otherwise would be lawful carrying of a firearm. (assuming no permit/open carry)
I'd like to note here that Montbello, Green Valley Ranch, and similar areas are not what one would consider "urban"; at least in the sense of the downtown area or neighborhoods proximal to the city center.
While I intend to start immediately into classes with my wife so we can secure our permits, I am just puzzled at how Denver can assert itself as immune to Constitutional provisions of both the State and Federal governments.
Anybody got any illumination on this topic?
Blessings,
M-Taliesin