• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Denver's Exception to OC

M-Taliesin

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2011
Messages
1,504
Location
Aurora, Colorado
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
 

Kingfish

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2007
Messages
1,276
Location
Atlanta, Georgia, USA
It wasn't really that Denver won the supreme court case. The decision was 3-3 with one judge that would have rules against Denver having to recuse herself. So, it was a tie and thus the status quo remained.
 

bomber

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2009
Messages
499
Location
, ,
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

do you always talk like this? are you the guy who stands on the corner of alameda and havana with the big Jesus Saves sign?
 

M-Taliesin

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2011
Messages
1,504
Location
Aurora, Colorado
do you always talk like this? are you the guy who stands on the corner of alameda and havana with the big Jesus Saves sign?

Howdy Bomber!
I've seen a couple of your posts, and see you are generally disrespectful of others.
That being said, no. I don't carry Jesus signs of any stripe.
Besides which, if I did, that would also be my Constitutional right.
So what have you against the language of the Constitution?
And just out of curiosity, what makes you think I'm even a Christian to begin with?

Blessings,
M-Taliesin
 

Gunslinger

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
3,853
Location
Free, Colorado, USA
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

Yes. A sinkhole should open and swallow Denver, pulling in Boulder, and then close. That would solve 99% of the state's problems.
 

bomber

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2009
Messages
499
Location
, ,
Howdy Bomber!
I've seen a couple of your posts, and see you are generally disrespectful of others.
That being said, no. I don't carry Jesus signs of any stripe.
Besides which, if I did, that would also be my Constitutional right.
So what have you against the language of the Constitution?
And just out of curiosity, what makes you think I'm even a Christian to begin with?

Blessings,
M-Taliesin

you just seem like maybe the kind of guy that would stand on a corner with a big sign.
 

M-Taliesin

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2011
Messages
1,504
Location
Aurora, Colorado
you just seem like maybe the kind of guy that would stand on a corner with a big sign.

Howdy Again Bomber!
A: Your opinion matters nothing to me whatsoever.
B: You don't know me from Adam.
C: Are rather arrogant in the belief you should judge anybody else.
D: Welcome to leave your attitude elsewhere.

Have a terrific day.

Blessings,
M-Taliesin
 

mahkagari

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2009
Messages
1,186
Location
, ,
you just seem like maybe the kind of guy that would stand on a corner with a big sign.

And you seem like maybe the kind of guy that would stand on a corner and loudly talk to yourself about why every person who walks by p!$$e$ you off. So? What's the difference between standing on a corner with a big sign and having a YouTube channel with a Mexican lucha libre mask?
 
Last edited:

M-Taliesin

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2011
Messages
1,504
Location
Aurora, Colorado
Yes. A sinkhole should open and swallow Denver, pulling in Boulder, and then close. That would solve 99% of the state's problems.

Howdy Gunslinger!
I do not always agree with everything you say, but on this particular point, I wholeheartedly agree.

And it isn't just the preemption that bothers me about Denver either. It is the frequent report of execessive force being used by DPD officers that is really alarming. Incidents where citizens were beaten to a bloody (literally) pulp by officers for reasons that appear purely spurious. The case of the guy walking his dog to a local park who ended up beaten and hospitalized for no apparent reason. The fellow who saw another citizen being abused while being arrested and was thrown to the ground because he was using his cellphone to report the incident to a 3rd party. While I believe the vast majority of DPD officers are good and faithful servants of the public interest, there are some that cast a deep, dark shadow over the rest.

But beyond that, many of the problems that afflict Colorado are definately caused by Denver. The state is all but bankrupt. Could that have anything to do with taxpayers getting saddled with a new airport, relocating Eliches or maybe popping for a new baseball stadium and football stadium? Or how about selling off the names to those stadiums, i.e. Invesco Field. Gimme a break. Very weathy individuals get new toys and stick the taxpayer with the tab. Not only that, we're expected to tip well for the service. Meanwhile, schools are closing and services to citizens get cut because of budgetary constraints. No wonder Denver doesn't much hanker to see their citizens armed. That could lead to them demanding something akin to respect.

And don't even get me started on the whole "sanctuary city" thing, or I'll be typing all day! No, I am not against immigration. I am against illegal activity but even more staunchly opposed to aiding and abetting illegal activity.

Anyhow, I didn't intend to get on a soapbox this morning, but can agree most emphatically with your sentiment. Many of our state's problems are based out of Denver, with Boulder running a real close second.

Blessings,
M-Taliesin
 
Last edited:

bomber

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2009
Messages
499
Location
, ,
And you seem like maybe the kind of guy that would stand on a corner and loudly talk to yourself about why every person who walks by p!$$e$ you off. So? What's the difference between standing on a corner with a big sign and having a YouTube channel with a Mexican lucha libre mask?


oh you noticed..... did you subscribe?
 

bomber

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2009
Messages
499
Location
, ,
Howdy Again Bomber!
A: Your opinion matters nothing to me whatsoever.
B: You don't know me from Adam.
C: Are rather arrogant in the belief you should judge anybody else.
D: Welcome to leave your attitude elsewhere.

Have a terrific day.

Blessings,
M-Taliesin


i'm not judging, i'm just asking questions
 

Anubis

Newbie
Joined
Sep 16, 2006
Messages
451
Location
Arapahoe County CO, ,
Anybody got any illumination on this topic?
Logically, after the Heller and McDonald SCOTUS decisions, all state and local governments should have immediately acknowledged the individual right to keep and bear arms in public places, openly carried or concealed.

Unfortunately, the legal system as we know it is not logical. To paraphrase Michael Connelly, the law is not about truth; it's about negotiation, amelioration, and manipulation.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
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.

I'm not quite sure how any state can counter a Constitutional right.
 

Anubis

Newbie
Joined
Sep 16, 2006
Messages
451
Location
Arapahoe County CO, ,
I'm not quite sure how any state can counter a Constitutional right.
Easily, regarding the bill of rights, which originally only restricted the federal government. Now after centuries of legal wrangling, some of them apply to state and local governments, some still don't.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
what does he write?

Don't recall. He just said he was a writer, and as a writer myself, it's clear he does. Most people write about as well as most people can fly a plane. It's obvious when it comes to those who really can fly an airplane.

^^^That's^^^ how most people write, totally off the cuff, with little editing. Here's how a writer writes:

I don't recall him mentioning his particular field over breakfast. He simply said he was a writer, and as a writer myself, his own writing strikes me as being genuine. Most people write about as well as they can fly an airplane. It's obvious whether or not someone's a pilot when they get behind the yoke. Real pilots are smooth and grease the landings, while those who aren't real pilots are all over the sky, and occasionally crash and burn. Much the same is true with professional writers.

As you can see, the way a professional writes is often more verbose than your average writer. It doesn't have to be, but a few extra words cost but a little extra time, and often add much.

On the other hand, other types of professional writers communicate in much shorter form, often in character (novel) or to establish a memorable jingle (advertising).

Example:

Don't recall. He said he was a writer. It's like flying a plane. Telling who can and and can't is easy for most, but more so for trained pilots.
 

M-Taliesin

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2011
Messages
1,504
Location
Aurora, Colorado
Howdy Folks!
This got a little distracted from the original intent of the thread regarding Denver's exception to preemption. That being said (and I doubt it ever was, really), I make my living as a driver for a local corporation that I've enjoyed for about 7 years now. That may need to change soon as I am not being returned to full duty following a personal injury on the job. But that is another story entirely.

The question of my writing having been raised, it is what I do. More of an avocation than 'job', it still requires a great deal of work! All those pesky nouns, vowels, adjectives and adverbs just make the chore somewhat more chorelike!

I have been published both domestically and internationally. My writing has varied from magazine articles to those published in newspapers and newsletters. I've written news articles, fictional stories, human interest, humor, and presently have several novels in the works. When inspired, writing can be fun and entertaining for the author. When ideas don't flow well, it becomes laborious beyond belief.

As I become more a part of the OC community, it is very likely I will write articles and essays for this particular aspect of my life. A good writer will tend to write about what he knows. At this point, I don't know enough to be completely articulate when addressing OC. Give it another six months, and you'll likely start seeing articles authored by me published in a variety of media in support of 2a rights.

While a good handgun is a deadly weapon, and so is the ability of the writer who knows his topic. This brings to mind a movie I saw once entitled "Pentagon Wars". The hero sits down to his typewriter and says he is going to inflict "Paper cuts. Deadly paper cuts!" Based on a true story, one man stood against the powers of the pentagon to do his part to save the lives of soldiers riding into battle aboard the Bradley Fighting Vehicle. But I digress. The point is, a writer can have an powerful impact. One of the finest American writers gave us that second amendment, and it still rings down through the years with power we hold dear today. That, too, is another story.

When I finally do begin writing about 2a issues and OC, I expect any pieces I produce to prove compelling and articulate. It is what I do. Perhaps, in some small way, I too can also inflict some deadly paper cuts against those who would usurp our precious rights and liberties!

Blessings,
M-Taliesin
 
Last edited:

bomber

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2009
Messages
499
Location
, ,
Howdy Folks!
This got a little distracted from the original intent of the thread regarding Denver's exception to preemption. That being said (and I doubt it ever was, really), I make my living as a driver for a local corporation that I've enjoyed for about 7 years now. That may need to change soon as I am not being returned to full duty following a personal injury on the job. But that is another story entirely.

The question of my writing having been raised, it is what I do. More of an avocation than 'job', it still requires a great deal of work! All those pesky nouns, vowels, adjectives and adverbs just make the chore somewhat more chorelike!

I have been published both domestically and internationally. My writing has varied from magazine articles to those published in newspapers and newsletters. I've written news articles, fictional stories, human interest, humor, and presently have several novels in the works. When inspired, writing can be fun and entertaining for the author. When ideas don't flow well, it becomes laborious beyond belief.

As I become more a part of the OC community, it is very likely I will write articles and essays for this particular aspect of my life. A good writer will tend to write about what he knows. At this point, I don't know enough to be completely articulate when addressing OC. Give it another six months, and you'll likely start seeing articles authored by me published in a variety of media in support of 2a rights.

While a good handgun is a deadly weapon, and so is the ability of the writer who knows his topic. This brings to mind a movie I saw once entitled "Pentagon Wars". The hero sits down to his typewriter and says he is going to inflict "Paper cuts. Deadly paper cuts!" Based on a true story, one man stood against the powers of the pentagon to do his part to save the lives of soldiers riding into battle aboard the Bradley Fighting Vehicle. But I digress. The point is, a writer can have an powerful impact. One of the finest American writers gave us that second amendment, and it still rings down through the years with power we hold dear today. That, too, is another story.

When I finally do begin writing about 2a issues and OC, I expect any pieces I produce to prove compelling and articulate. It is what I do. Perhaps, in some small way, I too can also inflict some deadly paper cuts against those who would usurp our precious rights and liberties!

Blessings,
M-Taliesin


100 internet points if you can explain the reference in the picture

dunces-5_150.jpg
 
Top