From the C.R.S. Annotations following 18-106-1:
To digest, is OCing a properly-holstered firearm "alarming?" No, as it does not pass any reasonable/rational man test. Brandishing without any justified reason for doing so could be considered alarming. OCing by itself, however, cannot be legally construed as alarming. Therefore, any charge of disorderly conduct levied against OC in and of itself will not withstand scrutiny in the courts.The actus reus of felony menacing is "placing another person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury by the use of a deadly weapon", an act more specific than the actus reus of disorderly conduct with a deadly weapon, which is displaying a deadly weapon in an alarming manner in a public place.
Menacing requires even more aggravating action, such as pointing a firearm at another individual without lawful reason for doing so. A holstered firearm cannot be considered as "menacing," any more than a kitchen knife laying within arm's reach on a counter top could be considered "menacing."
So, in summary, can OCing in Colorado EVER be legally described as "alarming?" No, as it does not pass the rational/reasonable man test.
Can OCing every be legally described as "disorderly conduct?" No, as it's not alarming.
Can OCing ever be legally described as "menacing?" No, as a properly-holstered firearm is not communicating any "imminent serious bodily injury by the use of a deadly weapon."
Bottom line: If an LEO in Colorado uses (misuses, in my book) terms such as "disorderly conduct" or "menacing" in a manner calculated by them to attempt to curb your right to keep and bear arms, they are being deceptive. Intentionally? Perhaps not. Perhaps it's merely ignorance. Regardless, it's still wrong for them to do so.