Complete Local OC ban list

[RockyMtnScotsman]

imported post

DocNTexas wrote:

Dynamite Rabbit wrote:

From the Broomfield Municipal Code:

9-72-140 Prohibiting the open carrying of firearms.

The open carrying of firearms, as firearm is defined in subsection 9-72-010(B), B.M.C., is hereby prohibited in any city-owned building, facility, park, open land, or open space where signs are placed at the public entrances to any city-owned building, facility, park, open land, or open space informing persons that the open carrying of firearms is prohibited. (Ord. 1736 §1, 2003)

9-72-020 Possession and use of weapons.
seems to make open carry illegal.

It's all at http://www.colocode.com/broomfield/title9.htm#chapter9_72

You decide how to interpret it!

I agree with Centsi, it would appear that 9-72-140, enacted in 2003, was intended to supersede 9-72-020, which was last modified in 1993, since 9-72-140 directly addresses Open Carry. In doing so, open carry in Broomfield is restricted in line with the provisions ofcurrent state law, 29-11.7-104 Regulation-Carrying-Posting, enacted in 2003 by SB25, which allows local governments toregulate (even prohibit)open carry within their jurisdiction as long as specific requirements of notification are met. If all entrances to a specified areas are signed, then itwould be illegal to carry in that area in Broomfield.

But as the condition in red is a practical impossibility then the prohibition against OC is not legally enforceable, yes?

 

[centsi]

imported post

9-72-140 is entirely enforceable with proper signage. 9-72-020 (B) (1) is not.

 

[RockyMtnScotsman]

imported post

centsi wrote:

9-72-140 is entirely enforceable with proper signage. 9-72-020 (B) (1) is not.

Placing signs at all entrances to city-owned buildings is relatively easy.

Placing signs at all entrances to city-owned parks or open spaces... not so much.

 

[cscitney87]

imported post

RockyMtnScotsman wrote:

centsi wrote:

9-72-140 is entirely enforceable with proper signage. 9-72-020 (B) (1) is not.

Placing signs at all entrances to city-owned buildings is relatively easy.

Placing signs at all entrances to city-owned parks or open spaces... not so much.

It's no wonder that the officer(s) never mentioned, over the phone, that the local laws require posted signage to be enforceable and effective.

Honestly, like most people on the fence, it seems all to radical to just open carry- sourcing the lack of a posted sign, when being questioned by an LEO. Like I said before, seems like it's one of those- get arrested and gun confiscated- and then bail out and fight the charges in court.

I know it's the law- and it seems to be written black and white (as far as posted signage), but I just don't seen Any officer of the law actually confirming that a posted sign needs to be visible- in other words- when has the "I'm not doing anything wrong- No sign is posted..." defense worked in Broomfield?

All that being said.. I'm so anxious to "push it" with these local laws.. that's honestly why I went ahead and contacted the Lakewood DA (earlier post in this thread) and I may go ahead and contact the Broomfield DA. Seems like having a personalized, written letter from the DA, may be the best way of avoiding open carry LEO issues.

Any thoughts?

 

[RockyMtnScotsman]

imported post

cscitney87 wrote:

It's no wonder that the officer(s) never mentioned, over the phone, that the local laws require posted signage to be enforceable and effective.

<snip for brevity>

Any thoughts?

In my opinion, the PD would likely give the simple/short answer of "not allowed" for the sole reason of making their own jobs easier. By telling you that it's not allowed, they won't be fielding and responding to MWAG calls. That their laziness infringes on your rights probably never enters their mind.

...and that's assuming the PD knows the law in the first place which is no sure bet. My wife was pulled over (properly) not long ago and was scolded by the CSPD for having a handgun in the glovebox of her Jeep w/o a permit. That's not the law in CO. Whether the cop was ignorant or lazy doesn't matter - he was wrong.

 

[cscitney87]

imported post

RockyMtnScotsman wrote:

cscitney87 wrote:

It's no wonder that the officer(s) never mentioned, over the phone, that the local laws require posted signage to be enforceable and effective.

<snip for brevity>

Any thoughts?

In my opinion, the PD would likely give the simple/short answer of "not allowed" for the sole reason of making their own jobs easier. By telling you that it's not allowed, they won't be fielding and responding to MWAG calls. That their laziness infringes on your rights probably never enters their mind.

Very sobering thought. Thank you.

 

[DocNTexas]

imported post

centsi wrote:

DocNTexas wrote:

Dynamite Rabbit wrote:

From the Broomfield Municipal Code:

9-72-140 Prohibiting the open carrying of firearms.

The open carrying of firearms, as firearm is defined in subsection 9-72-010(B), B.M.C., is hereby prohibited in any city-owned building, facility, park, open land, or open space where signs are placed at the public entrances to any city-owned building, facility, park, open land, or open space informing persons that the open carrying of firearms is prohibited. (Ord. 1736 §1, 2003)

9-72-020 Possession and use of weapons.
seems to make open carry illegal.

It's all at http://www.colocode.com/broomfield/title9.htm#chapter9_72

You decide how to interpret it!

I agree with Centsi, it would appear that 9-72-140, enacted in 2003, was intended to supersede 9-72-020, which was last modified in 1993, since 9-72-140 directly addresses Open Carry. In doing so, open carry in Broomfield is restricted in line with the provisions ofcurrent state law, 29-11.7-104 Regulation-Carrying-Posting, enacted in 2003 by SB25, which allows local governments toregulate (even prohibit)open carry within their jurisdiction as long as specific requirements of notification are met. If all entrances to a specified areas are signed, then itwould be illegal to carry in that area in Broomfield.

Doc

If Doc agrees it must be true! Thanks Doc!

Now Centsi, we do agree most of the time.

At leastBroomfield appears to be trying to work within the state's intentrather thanfalling behind Denver in claiming no preemption exists (even if theirLEO's can't read/comprehend local ordenances).

It sure would be nice if the state would address this issue next session and make open carry a clear state regulated (and allowed) issue. While theythought that was what they were doing with SB25,it was too vaguely written to survive the challenge.

The same thing happened in Texas with their attempt to clarify the state's long standing"Traveling" exemption. It took two sessions (4 years) to get it done. The first draft, which on the face appeared clear and straight forward, failed to produce the desired results and many state prosecutors and law enforcement agencies vowed to continue arresting those covered by it.Before it could bechallenged in the courts to see how it would stand up, Texas Legislators, considering it a slap in the face by these defiant agencies,jumped on it the next session to remove all doubt of their intent.

Doc

 

[DocNTexas]

imported post

RockyMtnScotsman wrote:

DocNTexas wrote:

Dynamite Rabbit wrote:

From the Broomfield Municipal Code:

9-72-140 Prohibiting the open carrying of firearms.

The open carrying of firearms, as firearm is defined in subsection 9-72-010(B), B.M.C., is hereby prohibited in any city-owned building, facility, park, open land, or open space where signs are placed at the public entrances to any city-owned building, facility, park, open land, or open space informing persons that the open carrying of firearms is prohibited. (Ord. 1736 §1, 2003)

9-72-020 Possession and use of weapons.
seems to make open carry illegal.

It's all at http://www.colocode.com/broomfield/title9.htm#chapter9_72

You decide how to interpret it!

I agree with Centsi, it would appear that 9-72-140, enacted in 2003, was intended to supersede 9-72-020, which was last modified in 1993, since 9-72-140 directly addresses Open Carry. In doing so, open carry in Broomfield is restricted in line with the provisions ofcurrent state law, 29-11.7-104 Regulation-Carrying-Posting, enacted in 2003 by SB25, which allows local governments toregulate (even prohibit)open carry within their jurisdiction as long as specific requirements of notification are met. If all entrances to a specified areas are signed, then itwould be illegal to carry in that area in Broomfield.

But as the condition in red is a practical impossibility then the prohibition against OC is not legally enforceable, yes?

It is enforceable to the extent that they can meet the requirement. In buildings and other limited access areas such as a fenced park, meeting this requirement is easy, but in an entirely open area (or the town in general) it is a near impossible task.

In states with similar laws there have been a wide range of rulings for proper posting of open, uncontrolled accessareas. Some have ruled that as long as the general access areas such as sidewalks were posted that was sufficient as people are intended to use these means of access. Others have ruled that if one was able toreasonably access the area without being exposed to the notice, then the area was not properly posted and not enforceable.

I suppose a city could post readable signs (billboards) at their border on every road entering the city and effectively prohibit carry but that is totally impractical.

Doc

 

[DocNTexas]

imported post

The last time I was in Broomfield (in 2006) I open carried because it was 90+ degrees and I entered several stores and a restaurant over the 2+ hours in town without so much as a glance. I did not actually enter any government buildings or city parks but I did not see a single sign either. Are there any signs actually posted there now?

Doc

 

[cscitney87]

imported post

DocNTexas wrote:

The last time I was in Broomfield (in 2006) I open carried because it was 90+ degrees and I entered several stores and a restaurant over the 2+ hours in town without so much as a glance. I did not actually enter any government buildings or city parks but I did not see a single sign either. Are there any signs actually posted there now?

Doc

I drove I 25 to I 36 to Sheridan North into Broomfield and did not notice a single posted sign.

 

[Dynamite Rabbit]

imported post

The state statute says that a city can prohibit open carry in a specific area or building. I don't think that can possibly be construed as a whole city or town.

 

[centsi]

imported post

Hey, if Broomfield wants to waste resources putting up a sign on each public road, street, sidewalk, path, railroad and airport runway prohibiting OC, let'em do it.

 

[centsi]

imported post

I too have OCed in and out of malls & restaurants throughout Broomfield in the past year. No problems.

 

[DocNTexas]

imported post

centsi wrote:

Hey, if Broomfield wants to waste resources putting up a sign on each public road, street, sidewalk, path, railroad and airport runway prohibiting OC, let'em do it.

Before someone gets the wrong idea or we jumpall overBroomfield, I was not suggesting they would try to post the entire town, I was merely making a point about larger open access areas being difficult to post under the requirements of the law. While I would like to see no restriction at all on OC, I give Broomfield credit for at least trying to follow the states intent with SB25 rather than trying to keep a complete ban on OC.

Doc

 

[centsi]

imported post

I agree Doc. I think they are trying to follow SB25 and were probably too lazy to repeal 9-72-020 or thought it unnecessary.

 

[since9]

imported post

cscitney87 wrote:

City of Lakewood
Office of the City Attorney
Janet Young
Deputy City Attorney
445 South Allison Parkway Lakewood, CO 80226-3106
(303) 987-7102
August 19, 2009 FAX: (303) 987-7296

Dear Mr. Scitney:
Citizens typically react with fear and alarm when they encounter a person openly carrying a firearm.

Sincerely,
Janet Young
Deputy City Attorney

[line]

Dear Janet Young:

It is abundantly clear you are making this up.

I have been openly carrying a firearm for mid-January, to restaurants serving breakfast, lunch, and dinner, to bookstores, gas stations, grocery stores, hardware stores,shoe stores, recreational/sporting goods stores, auto parts stores, clothing stores, and just about any other store you might imagine.

Fathers and store owners do not call 911, mothers do not gather up their children, and patrons do not flee the premises.

The "worst" reaction I seen to date are the three times people have asked me, "I'm curious as to why you're carrying a gun" after which we shared several minutes worth of good, light-hearted conversation. The best reaction I experienced was when a little girl turned to her mother and said, "Mommy, he's got a gun" to which her mother smiled at me and said, "Yes, he does - just like Daddy."

Sincerely,

Since9

No, I didn't send it, as I wouldn't want to highlight scitney in any way.

 

[cscitney87]

imported post

since9 wrote:

cscitney87 wrote:

[line]

Dear Janet Young:

Sincerely,

Since9

No, I didn't send it, as I wouldn't want to highlight scitney in any way.

Thanks, Sir.

Hey and my CHP is about 60 days away

 

[Freightdog]

imported post

Fascinating legal discussion, but let's get back to the original question. Regardless of whether or not these local laws are legal and enforceable, the following municipalities have laws on the books: Denver, Telluride (maybe); according to RMGrg both Arvada and Breckenridge have city-wide OC bans and Pueblo prohibits OC in places which sell alcohol. Also from RMGO, Castle Rock bans OC in pretty much every city-owned location; don't know how good they are about posting signs. According to member Nomadic in another thread on this forum, Golden also bans OC city-wide. From RMGO, state law prohibits carrying LOADED weapons (open or concealed) in any public transportation facilities (19-9-118), and state law prohibits open carry on the grounds of any school, K-college, public or private (18-12-105.5).

 

[cscitney87]

imported post

If anyone cares to know; Walmart off of S Wadsworth- next to Costco and the Ford Dealership. Burger King in the parking lot. They have ammo! Not much and I took 100 rounds of 9 Lugar and 100 rounds of 40SW Winchester. 100 .40SW for $29.98 and I saved $10 over gun shop prices on the 9mm. Anyone lives nearby and needs a cheap box of target ammo I would stop by real quick before the night runs out.

I SOO Love finding ammo at Walmart. What a refresher on price.

 

[denwego]

imported post

Freightdog wrote:

Fascinating legal discussion, but let's get back to the original question.  Regardless of whether or not these local laws are legal and enforceable, the following municipalities have laws on the books: Denver, Telluride (maybe); according to RMGrg both Arvada and Breckenridge have city-wide OC bans and Pueblo prohibits OC in places which sell alcohol. Also from RMGO, Castle Rock bans OC in pretty much every city-owned location; don't know how good they are about posting signs.  According to member Nomadic in another thread on this forum, Golden also bans OC city-wide.  From RMGO, state law prohibits carrying LOADED weapons (open or concealed) in any public transportation facilities (19-9-118), and state law prohibits open carry on the grounds of any school, K-college, public or private (18-12-105.5).

From the horse's mouth in Arvada: http://arvada.org/safety-and-health/guns/ - the police department's statement on concealed carry laws and the fact that Arvada only can regulate posted areas, despite any additional (and invalid) statutes.

It's a purely semantic argument, but 18-12-105.5 doesn't appear to ban open carry on a college campus as long as you have a Colorado CHP. Do not construe that as advice that anyone go out and do it, then :? My own several years in grad school at CU-Boulder makes me think that might be a bad idea, just a smidge!

And I've often wondered about municipalities banning carry in alcoholic-beverage establishments after preemption... I noticed it's a phenomenon commoner in the western half of the state than the eastern, keeping in tune with the old-west mentality of that half of handing your guns over in a bar until you left.. It's entirely clear they can't regulate by ordinance any legal concealed carry, leaving only private property trespass as a block. And open carry requires a posted sign to that effect in order to be enforceable; driving across the state as I did three to four years ago, I don't recall a single sign, period, in any alcohol-serving business banning any carry at all. Thoughts, oh fellows?